One North Sea Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


One North Sea Report



Assessment of the opportunities for carbon capture and storage in the North Sea Basin under different policy scenarios. Report commissioned by the North Sea Basin Task Force and produced by Element ...

Assessment of the opportunities for carbon capture and storage in the North Sea Basin under different policy scenarios. Report commissioned by the North Sea Basin Task Force and produced by Element Energy.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

One North Sea Report Document Transcript

  • 1. A study into North Sea cross-border CO2 transport and storageillustration: © Paul Weston 2010 DESIGN: Report for: On behalf of: The Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy The North Sea Basin Task Force The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  • 2. One North Sea One North Sea A study into North Sea cross-border CO 2 transport and storage 18th March 2010 Final Main Report For: The Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office On behalf of: The North Sea Basin Task Force Authors: Page 3
  • 3. About the Authors About the Authors Contributing organisations Element Energy Limited is a low carbon The following organisations provided consultancy providing a full suite of services important input into this study: from strategic advice to engineering consultancy in the low carbon energy The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate sector. Element Energy’s strengths include provided data on Norwegian demand and techno-economic forecasting and delivering CO2 storage potential, and assisted with strategic advice to clients on all opportunities stakeholder engagement. connected to the low carbon economy. The British Geological Survey (BGS) Element Energy has experience in the design provided input on sink assessment, a of strategies for the coordinated deployment GIS database of storage sites around the of low carbon infrastructure. North Sea and assisted with stakeholder For comments or queries, please contact: engagement. CMS Cameron McKenna provided input +44 (0) 1223 227 532 on legal and regulatory issues and assisted with stakeholder engagement. +44 (0) 1223 227 533 Econ Pöyry developed and modelled scenarios for capture within the power sector and databases of potential locations for capture sites around the North Sea. Carbon Counts provided feedback on the overall report and assisted with stakeholder consultation. Det Norsk Veritas provided feedback on the report’s conclusions and recommendations.Page 4
  • 4. CaveatCaveatWhile the authors consider that the dataand opinions contained in this report aresound, all parties must rely upon their ownskill and judgement when using it. Theauthors do not make any representation orwarranty, expressed or implied, as to theaccuracy or completeness of the report.There is considerable uncertainty aroundthe development of CCS. The available dataon sources and sinks are extremely limitedand the analysis is therefore based aroundhypothetical scenarios. The maps andcosts are provided for high-level illustrativepurposes and no detailed location-specificstudies have been carried out. The authorsassume no liability for any loss or damagearising from decisions made on the basisof this report. The views and judgementsexpressed here are the opinions of theauthors and do not reflect those of theGovernments of Germany, the Netherlands,Norway or the UK, or Industry/Academic/NGO Representatives of the North Sea BasinTask Force, Contributing Organisations, or Picture: iStockphoto © Kris HankeExpert Stakeholder Group. Page 5
  • 5. Contents ContentsPage 6
  • 6. ContentsHighlights 8List of Figures & List of Tables 10Executive Summary 121. Introduction 262. Overview of current CCS activity in Europe 323. Predicting deployment of CCS in the North Sea countries 424. Results 545. Additional drivers for CO2 networks 686. Legal and regulatory issues 807. A ‘One North Sea’ Vision 928. Barriers to achieving the vision 989. Delivering the vision 10210. Acknowledgements 108 Page 7
  • 7. Highlights Highlights Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the • Cross-border transport could become North Sea countries could play an important increasingly important beyond 2020 in role in European CO2 emissions abatement scenarios with high CCS growth and/or by 2030, with capture volumes above 270 where storage is restricted(for example, million tonnes (Mt) CO2/year. By 2050 this in onshore sinks). Cross border transport could rise above 450 Mt CO2/year. volumes could contribute up to 25% of overall CO2 flows in 2030. The combination of abundant CO2 storage capacity, clusters of CO2 sources, world • Uncertain CCS economic incentives, class research institutes and commercial regulations and viability of specific sinks, stakeholders, and a strong demonstration and limited co-operation and organisation programme makes the North Sea countries of stakeholders, work against private natural leaders for the development and sector investment in capture and large deployment of CCS technology in Europe. scale transport and storage infrastructure. Around fifty per cent of European CO2 • Uncertainties over capture demand storage potential is located under the and storage capacity also impede the North Sea. A large amount of predicted public sector from making the clear CCS demand is located within Germany, commitments to CCS that the private the Netherlands, Norway and the UK, the sector requires. countries of the North Sea Basin Task Force. The geographical clustering of sources Our analysis concludes that the rapid and/or sinks gives opportunities to develop deployment of large scale low cost efficient transport and storage networks. infrastructure by 2030 is technically achievable and is necessary for full Many stakeholders around the North Sea deployment (e.g. the ‘Very High’ scenario have already developed visions for deploying described in this report which stores over safe, cost-effective and timely transport and 270 Mt CO2/year in 2030). However this storage infrastructure, although challenges would require a step change in co-operation have also emerged. in planning by numerous stakeholders, The modelling and stakeholder consultation favourable economic conditions and CCS conducted demonstrate that: cost reduction. With only modest further intervention, the market is likely to deliver • In a ‘Very High’ CCS scenario source only a few of the most straightforward CCS ‘clusters’ or ‘hubs’ could be responsible projects by 2030, storing up to 46 Mt CO2/ for 80% of stored CO2 in 2030. year under the North Sea in a ‘Medium’Page 8
  • 8. HighlightsFigure 18: Carbon Capture and StorageCCS Decarbonised power for residential & Residential industrial uses CO2 from industrial sources Coal power station CO2 CO2 CO2 from refinery Coastal gas process terminal Gas power CO2 CO2 from hub station cement Ships with production Injection imported CO2 CO2 point Decarbonised Residential Subsea pipeline power for residential & industrial uses 1-3 km storage depth Sink, CO2 underground reservoir graphic: © 2010scenario. The shortfall between ‘Very High’ access to safe storage, for exampleand ‘Medium’ scenarios would need to be through developing frameworks formet by other approaches to CO2 abatement. managing cross-border CO2 flows.The focus for government and industry co- 3. Recognise shared interests, speak with oneoperation around the North Sea should voice and act consistently, where possible, tobe to: promote the development of CCS. 1. Co-ordinate and lead the pre- commercial deployment of CCS in the period to 2020 and beyond. 2. Increase confidence in the location, volumes and reliability of sink capacity in and around the North Sea, and facilitate Page 9
  • 9. List of figures List of figures Figure 1 CCS activity in the ‘Medium’ scenario in 2030 16 Figure 2 CCS activity in the ‘Very High’ scenario in 2030 17 Figure 3 Timeline reflecting the focus of CCS stakeholders in the North Sea region (assumes ‘Very High’ scenario) 24 Figure 3.1 A One North Sea vision 24 Figure 4 Approach taken to identify cross-border CCS demand around the North Sea and requirements for NSBTF to facilitate optimum transport and storage networks 44 Figure 5 Methodology for source-sink matching 51 Figure 6 Development of ‘Very High’ and ‘Medium’ CCS deployment scenarios 52 Figure 7 Map of 2020 CCS demonstration projects 57 Figure 8 Map of source-sink connections in 2030 – ‘Medium’ Scenario 59 Figure 9 Map of CCS transport and storage in 2030 – ‘Very high’ scenario 61 Figure 10 CO2 transport in 2050 – Very High Scenario. (No restrictions on transport or storage) 65 Figure 11 Existing gas and oil pipelines in the North Sea 72 Figure 12 Schematic of options for transport network topologies. A) Point-to-point; B) ‘Oversized’ Pipeline; C) Rights-of-way for pipelines; D) Shipping and shipping hub concept. 75 Figure 13 Overview of the DNV co-ordinated Joint Industry Projects (JIP) to develop CCS guidelines. (Image courtesy DNV) 84 Figure 14 Cross-border issues 91 Figure 15 A One North Sea vision 96 Figure 16 Virtuous circle of CCS policy development and investment in capture, transport and storage infrastructure 105 Figure 17 Timeline reflecting the focus of CCS stakeholders in the North Sea region (assumes ‘Very High’ scenario) 107 Figure 18 CCS scenario graphic 111Page 10
  • 10. List of tablesList of tablesTable 1 Summary of effects of transport and storage restrictions on CCS uptake in the NSBTF countries and Denmark 18Table 2 Summary of capture, transport and storage issues in the NSBTF countries 21Table 3 CCS demand in Europe in 2030 in three recent studies 29Table 4 Summary of the market and policy combinations in 2030 used as inputs for the Classic Carbon model 45Table 5 Projected CO2 capture investment from the Classic Carbon and PRIMES models 46Table 6 Modelled Mt CO2 storage capacity in depleted hydrocarbon fields in the GIS database with 30Mt filter 49Table 7 Modelled Mt CO2 storage capacity in saline aquifers in the GIS database 49Table 8 Summary of transport and storage inputs for the CCS deployment scenarios 53Table 9 Development of ‘Medium’ scenario 58Table 10 Development of ‘Very High’ Scenario 60Table 11 Summary of sensitivity analysis conducted on the ‘Very High’ scenario 63Table 12 Comparison of transport network topology options 76 Page 11
  • 11. Executive Summary Executive SummaryPage 12
  • 12. Executive SummaryExecutive Summary 14Background 14Our Approach 14Analysis 15A ‘One North Sea’ vision 19Barriers to CCS in the North Sea region 21Suggested actions for theNorth Sea Basin Task Force 22Actions for Governments of the NSBTFto facilitate cross-border CO2 flows 23 Page 13
  • 13. Executive Summary Executive Summary demand for cross-border transport and storage, and (ii) government actions and principles to support the management of CO2 flows across national borders Background (‘transboundary’) and optimise the rapid development of CO2 transport infrastructure. The European Union, its member states and Norway, have pledged to dramatically Our Approach reduce emissions of carbon dioxide The approach taken in this study combined over the next decades, in order to avoid a review of policies and initiatives to support dangerous climate change. Meeting CO2 CCS at EU level, and within Norway, reduction targets will require action in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany, every sector. Alongside renewable energy economic modelling of CCS demand and technologies, nuclear power, and energy CO2 transport and storage scenarios and efficiency measures, carbon dioxide capture networks, an analysis of legal and regulatory and storage (CCS) has the potential to barriers to achieving CCS deployment, and substantially reduce future CO2 emissions a three-month consultation exercise involving from electricity generation and industry. more than forty government, industry and Recent studies suggest that CCS could (in a academic stakeholders. cost effective manner) provide up to 20% of European CO2 abatement by 2030, reducing Scenarios for investment in capture, emissions by 0.4 Gt CO2/year (IEA, 2009, transport and storage in 2030 and 2050 McKinsey 2008). By 2050 this could rise were developed by the project team above 1 Gt CO2/year. and stakeholders to understand how the quantities and geographic distribution of Within Europe, the North Sea region has CO2 capture, transport and storage might a natural role in the development of CCS, develop. due to high concentrations of industrial and power sector emissions and access Projected investments in capture technology to an abundant and diverse resource of at power plants were determined using potential storage sites under the North a model of the European power sector, Sea. Against this backdrop, the UK developed by Econ Pöyry. A database for Foreign and Commonwealth Office and storage capacities of potential sites in the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy North Sea countries was provided by the commissioned the ‘One North Sea’ study British Geological Survey and Norwegian in September 2009, on behalf of the North Petroleum Directorate, drawing on the recent Sea Basin Task Force (NSBTF), to establish EU GeoCapacity study1. a vision of the potential role of the North Sea in the future deployment of CCS across These data were used as inputs to Element Europe, and propose a strategy for its Energy’s CO2 network optimisation model, delivery. which identified plausible matches of sources and sinks. The network model was used To understand the role for co-ordinated to analyse the distribution of CCS across activity amongst the governments of the the North Sea countries, with particular NSBTF, a team led by Element Energy emphasis on cross-border transport of carried out an examination of (i) likely CO2 for the different scenarios. All resultsPage 14 1
  • 14. Executive Summaryand interpretations were shared with the further two under development at Kårstoexpert stakeholder group. The stakeholder and Mongstad. The UK has a commitmentengagement provided local knowledge and to fund four CCS demonstration projectsrevealed where expectations differ. and is part-way through the development of significant long-term regulatoryCMS Cameron McKenna analysed legal frameworks to support large scaleand regulatory issues. The report was deployment of CCS. The Government ofreviewed in full by Carbon Counts, and the Netherlands is amending legislation andrecommendations were additionally reviewed developing a Masterplan for CO2 transportby DNV. This final version of the report and storage infrastructure. Germanincorporates feedback from stakeholders on Government support is directed throughthe interim and draft final versions. two research programs, focused on power plant efficiency, capture and storage.Analysis As a result of the policy support and public financing for CCS demonstration,At European level, the most important CCS CCS demand in 2020 is modelled aspolicies have been: approximately 30 MtCO2/yr in the NSBTF countries. • Passing of the CCS Directive in 2009, which has established a legal framework Once satisfactory capture and storage for geological CO2 storage exploration, locations have been identified, transport operation and closure. choices would primarily be based on considerations of capacity, distance and • Partial funding for six large-scale CCS terrain which influence capital and lifetime demonstration projects from the European costs, and planning and consenting risks Energy Programme for Recovery. and timescales. Additional drivers include financing, predicted utilization, economic • A commitment to fund up to twelve use of CO2 (such as for enhanced oil large-scale CCS demonstration projects recovery or in greenhouses), infrastructure using 300 million emissions trading re-use, shipping and clustering. scheme allowances from the New Entrants Reserve. Cross-border transport of CO2 between NSBTF members before 2020 is not strictly • Inclusion of CCS within the next phase necessary. This is primarily because each of the Emissions Trading Scheme. country has sufficient domestic capacity • Funding research, development and to match demand. Some stakeholders communication activities, for example nevertheless express interest in cross- through the Framework programmes. border CO2 transport beginning after 2016, possibly by ship, from Germany, Belgium,The four Governments represented on Northern France, Sweden or Finland tothe North Sea Basin Task Force have British, Norwegian or Dutch sinks, anddevoted considerable efforts to removing from the Netherlands to Denmark for CO2-legal obstacles and supporting research, enhanced oil recovery. It is not clear howdevelopment and demonstration of CCS. well developed these proposals are.Norway already has two CCS projects inoperation at Sleipner and Snøhvit, and a Page 15
  • 15. Executive Summary Legend - graphic: © ElementEnergy 2010 2030 Sinks 30 year annual capacity (Mt/yr) <2.5 2.5-5 5 Mt/yr 5-10 10-15 5 Mt/yr 15-20 10 Mt/yr 20-50 50+ Sources 5 Mt/yr 2020 Demonstrations 10 Mt/yr 2030 Source-sink matches Large uncertainty 5 Mt/yr 5 Mt/yr over pipeline routes and CO2 injection locations 0 500 1000 Kilometres Figure 1: CCS activity in the ‘Medium’ scenario 2030 Source clusters with shared infrastructure policies and progress in CCS beyond are unlikely to occur before 2020, although currently announced CCS demonstrations. careful design and implementation of the The scenario reflects a future where there demonstration projects could expedite the are limited opportunities for storage, and development of larger networks between relatively simple ‘point-to-point’ transport 2020 and 2030. The strengths and infrastructure. weaknesses in facilitating transport growth of point-to-point pipelines, shared rights of However, with optimistic assumptions way, integrated pipelines and shipping are on CCS demand and a step-change in compared in the report. co-ordinated efforts to deliver large scale transport and storage, CCS could play a For 2030, due to uncertainty, a range important role in European CO2 abatement of different CCS deployment levels are efforts by 2030. For example, Figure 2 analysed. The economic modelling and shows the overall quantity and distribution stakeholder feedback identify an overall of CO2 capture and storage projects in the demand for CCS in the NSBTF countries NSBTF countries and Denmark in a ‘Very and Denmark of ca. 46 MtCO2/year in 2030. High’ CCS scenario, where 270 Mt CO2/yr This is the ‘Medium’ scenario, illustrated in is captured and stored in 2030. Figure 1, and is consistent with modestPage 16
  • 16. Executive Summary Legend graphic: 2030 Sinks © ElementEnergy 2010 30 year annual capacity (Mt/yr) <2.5 2.5-5 5 Mt/yr 5-10 10-15 10 Mt/yr 15-20 20-50 50+ Sources 20 Mt/yr 40 Mt/yr 60 Mt/yr Source clusters 2030 Power sector source Industrial Sources 10 Mt/yr 43 Mt/yr 20 Mt/yr 40 Mt/yr 0 500 1000 KilometresFigure 2: CCS activity in the Very High scenario in 2030In a ‘Very High’ scenario, CCS projects of some of these restrictions on the overallwould share transport and particularly uptake of CCS in the North Sea countriesstorage infrastructure due to geographical by 2030. Storage restrictions also have aaggregation of sources and sinks. Seven significant effect on CCS deployment, both onsuch clusters in the North Sea countries the number and cost on projects that may beare responsible for 80% of CO2 transported forced to transport CO2 to more distant this scenario in 2030. In this scenario,60% of CO2 storage is under the North Sea.Cross-border transport comprises 10 – 15%of overall CO2 storage by 2030.Energy and climate policies are vital driversfor CCS in Europe in 2030. However, verylarge scale of CCS deployment by 2030is additionally sensitive to restrictions ontransport and storage, as well as the overallinvestment in capture technology by individualplants. Table 1 (next page) shows the effect Page 17
  • 17. Executive Summary % Mt/yr Cross- Aquifer Onshore Cross- Scenarios stored border capacity storage border in 2030 transport permitted flow permitted ‘Very High’ deployment 273 Yes High Yes 10% Decreasing CO2 volume No cross-border transport and storage 253 No High Yes 0% agreements No hydrocarbon 8% 205 Yes High Yes fields Reduce Low aquifer capacity 191 Yes by 90% Yes 20% Restricted onshore 178 Yes High No 25% storage Low capture 65 Yes High Yes 21% investment Medium scenario Reduce 46 No No 0% by 90% Table 1: Summary of effects of transport and storage restrictions on CCS uptake in the NSBTF countries and Denmark The potential value of the CCS industry in deployment in 2030, a number of legal and Europe is very high. The IEA’s CCS Roadmap regulatory issues will need to be resolved envisages cumulative investment in CCS of before 2020. These include: US$6.8 billion in OECD Europe by 2020, with a total of $590 billion by 2050. For transport • Satisfactory regulations for exploration and storage alone, the comparable figures are and storage licenses, particularly liabilities, US$2.6 billion by 2020 and US$140 billion within national laws. by 2050. In some scenarios, the capacity of the transport and storage infrastructure would • Clarifying jurisdictional responsibilities exceed the capacity of existing North Sea and approaches for elements of CCS oil and gas infrastructure. The industries in – including handover of stewardship the North Sea could leverage home-grown of hydrocarbon sites for CO2 storage, experience to capture a large proportion of risk management, site qualification, the global market – the IEA estimates the monitoring, verification, accounting, cumulative value to be US$5 trillion by 2050. reporting, decommissioning, and monitoring. There are long lead times for delivery of international legal agreements and major • Legal rights to transport captured CO2 infrastructure. International agreements often across borders, which require ratification take several years to broker, and it can take of the recent amendments to the Ospar more than ten years from early design to the Protocol and London Convention. eventual operation of a large pipeline that crosses international borders. Therefore in the event of a ‘Very High’ scenario for CCSPage 18
  • 18. Executive Summary • Clarifying emissions accounting rules the development of CCS incentives at for integrated CCS networks spanning European and global levels. multiple countries, with diverse sources, sinks and transport solutions. • A more detailed picture of the useful storage capacity within the North Sea • Agreements on the management will have been developed, increasing of cross-border issues, such as confidence for policymakers and transboundary transport and storage commercial stakeholders alike. infrastructure, sinks that span national borders, and the management of potential • The demonstration projects will be impacts from a project developed in one optimised to ensure the necessary learning country on a second country. and growth is achieved efficiently, with best practices developed and communicated on capture, transport, and storage.A ‘One North • Appropriate legislation will be in place toSea’ Vision facilitate the large scale commercial storage of CO2 under the North Sea, and its potential transfer between member states.The member states and commercial partnersof the NSBTF are in a natural leadership Mid-termposition on CCS, due to: Assuming successful demonstration, a ramping • Abundant sink capacity and source up of commercial CCS deployment in the clustering, potentially leading to lower period 2020 – 2030 so that by 2030 the costs for deployment. technology is making a significant contribution to CO2 abatement within Europe. • The opportunity to capitalise on commercial activity within NSBTF member • Incentives for CCS (such as CO2 prices) will states, to act as a supplier of CCS be sufficient and long-term so as to encourage technologies and expertise, which, once a growing number of large scale commercial proven, can be exported worldwide. projects.We suggest the following vision for CCS • The legislation developed in the near term, willwithin the North Sea region: support an increasing volume of cross border flows. This mutual support will help dilute andNear term reduce risk and costs amongst North Sea member states.A coordinated set of demonstration and pre-commercial projects in the period to 2020 • By the end of this period, the CO2 flows in theproving key elements of the technology as North Sea region and the industry required toeconomically viable, and thereby establishing develop it, approach the capacity of the oil andthe NSBTF countries alongside world leaders gas industry in the North Sea.of technology development and deployment. • Industry in the NSBTF countries will exploit the • There will be significant efforts by the knowledge acquired through demonstration and governments and stakeholders of the scale up, exporting technologies and services to NSBTF to coordinate efforts on a worldwide market. Page 19
  • 19. Executive Summary Long term to attract and retain carbon- and energy- intensive industries, allowing them to Assuming successful CCS deployment, in operate cost-effectively within a low the period up to 2050 where necessary we carbon economy. will see: • The CO2 storage capacity of the • Many additional sources, including NSBTF countries will be harnessed to industrial sources, will connect to CCS facilitate the development of a low carbon networks, further increasing overall economy beyond the NSBTF countries, abatement. for example, import of captured CO2 or • A well-established transport and net export of low carbon electricity to storage infrastructure will allow the region other European nations.Page 20
  • 20. Executive SummaryBarriers to CCS in the incentives, the usefulness of specific storage sites, and the transfers of liabilities, there is aNorth Sea region risk that the industry will not develop beyond a small number of demonstration scale plants between now and 2030. Currently,The modelling and stakeholder review the barriers to CCS, and the progress beingidentified that although the potential for made to reduce them, vary substantiallyCCS in NSBTF countries is very large, there between the countries of the uncertainty at every part of the valuechain. Unless steps are taken to provide Table 2 summarises the issues facinggreater certainty, for example over capture each country.Table 2: Summary of capture, transport and storage issues in the NSBTF countries Country Norway UK Germany Holland Maximum annual Mt CO2 captured in Up to 7 Up to 60 Up to 160 Up to 40 2030 Projects Progress with operational and Projects in design phase. Small pilots operational demonstration under construction Capture policy Strong policy Strong policy for Strong CO2 CCS policies support CCS with new reduction agreed by coal plant commitments Parliament but limited existing CCS polocies Sufficiency of Excess capacity, Excess capacity, Sufficient theoretical capacity, but storage capacity with potential to but limited sink use sensitive to conditions. for high demand store CO2 from maturation so far Cross-border transport reduces risks other countries if domestic storage is not available Transport issues Pipeline re-use Intervention may be needed to facilitate optimal growth potential of networks. Some pipeline reuse potential Prevailing cross-border Import, export Import Import Export opportunity in 2030 or hub Page 21
  • 21. Executive Summary The barriers facing the CCS industry in The first four of these require the organisation, Europe and the North Sea countries can be expertise and interests of the governments summarised as follows: of the North Sea countries, representatives of the CCS industry, and key independent 1. Insufficient incentives for CO2 capture stakeholders. Therefore, given its unique remain the biggest barrier to widespread membership and terms of reference, these Su CCS deployment in Europe. could logically be actions for the full NSBTF. fo 2. Whilst overall theoretical capacity estimates are high, storage opportunities The fifth recommendation relates to facilitating N for CO2 are highly site-specific. Information cross-border CCS projects, and this would on the locations, capacities, suitability and need to remain the exclusive responsibility Ta availability of individual sinks is currently of the Governments, although this could still too limited to support Europe-wide policies occur within the auspices of the NSBTF. and investments that would result in significant CCS activity. Actions for the NSBTF (or other 3. A vicious circle comprising high consortia combining the interests uncertainties over the demand for CCS, of public and private stakeholders investment in integrated infrastructure, in the region) sink suitability and availability, technology development and public policy across Recommendation 1 Europe creates a real risk that investments in CCS infrastructure, for example in Recognising the limitations of existing data shared pipelines, will not proceed quickly on sink capacity, availability, and suitability, enough to enable a large-scale roll-out of and long lead times for storage assessment CCS in the period 2020 to 2030. and validation, the NSBTF (or others) should, by 2012, consider a shared CO2 storage 4. There is limited clarity on CO2 storage assessment to improve the consistency, regulations, creating challenging business quality and credibility of North Sea storage models for storage. capacity estimation, mapping, suitability assessment, and/or validation. 5. An absence of strong public support for CCS as a whole and for constituent Recommendation 2 elements. Recognising the potential for information Recommended actions to reduce uncertainties and optimise the development of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, the NSBTF (or others) should On the basis of the analysis undertaken and continue to assess and publish biennial long- associated stakeholder consultation, this range reviews of opportunities and challenges report identifies steps that need to occur at for CCS-related activity in and around the global and European levels to deliver CCS. North Sea region. We make five specific recommendations for The next review should include: activities at North Sea level that should ensure CCS could be a viable large scale CO2- i. Updated assessments of the economic abatement strategy for the NSBTF countries. potentials, timing, organisation andPage 22
  • 22. Executive Summary implementation of capture, transport, Actions for Governments to storage, enhanced oil recovery, and infrastructure re-use. facilitate cross-border CO2 flows The analysis in this report identifies that cross- ii. Updates on relevant national and border CO2 transport and storage could play uggested actions European policies and guidelines, and a useful role by 2030. The Governments of comparison of technical, legal, regulatoryor the or commercial barriers for CCS in the NSBTF member states are best placed to address these cross-border issues, and we North Sea region with other regions of theNorth Sea Basin world. recommend the following actions: ask Force iii. A review of low cost near term Recommendation 5 measures that could substantially reduce Before 2014 the NSBTF Government the long-term costs of CCS, for instance Members should review progress on cross- data sharing, future-proofing specific sites border issues and expected demand, and if or infrastructure, or increased organisation. necessary the Governments should publish iv. Case studies providing as much detail a formal statement of intent to agree terms as possible on site-specific opportunities where required in respect of the management and challenges for capture, transport and of cross-border flows or potential impacts, storage. infrastructure and storage complexes. Whilst the exact timing and focus will depend Recommendation 3 on the outcome of this review and expected Recognising that depleted hydrocarbon lead times, Governments should consider reservoirs in the North Sea are promising early developing frameworks in the period 2015 – storage sites, in the period 2010 – 2015 the 2020 for: NSBTF (or others) should share experience • The management of potential impacts and thereby develop guidelines on how of CO2 storage projects developed in one stewardship should be transferred between country on a second country. hydrocarbon extraction, Government, and CO2 storage. • The management of liabilities for CO2 transported from one country and stored in Recommendation 4 a second country. Recognising that influencing policy • The management of CO2 storage development and sharing information at global complexes that span national borders, for and particularly European levels will be critical example exploration, leasing and licensing in developing CCS around the North Sea, the of pore spaces, short and long-term governments and members of the NSBTF (or monitoring and liabilities. others) must continue to show leadership and co-operation in the development of legislation, • The permitting, construction, operation, and in sharing information where appropriate, decommissioning and liability issues to support CCS, in their own countries, at for physical CCS infrastructure such as European level and in global forums. pipelines and injection facilities that span borders. Page 23
  • 23. Executive Summary Vision Coordinated demonstration Ramp up of infrastructure Contribute significantly to EU CO2 abatement Ensure readiness to deploy Policy clarity Capacity exceeds North Sea oil Prove the technical & Ensure many types of Connect many sources Technology economic potential of CCS sources can be captured & sinks Reduce costs developers Improve storage assessments Mature sinks Transport & Facilitate long-term capacity growth storage Deliver demonstration Develop large scale infrastructure infrastructure Validate stores Projects share infrastructure Demonstration Cross-border legislation in place Policy Enabling EU & domestic Long-term incentives Capture from existing power focus legislation Long-term regulatory frameworks sources & industry CCS readiness 2010 2015 2020 2030 Figure 3: Timeline reflecting the focus of CCS stakeholders in the North Sea region (assumes ‘Very High’ scenario).Page 24
  • 24. Executive SummaryFigure 15:A ‘One North Sea’ visionFigure 3.1:A ‘One North Sea’ vision Depleted hydrocarbon field or Decarbonised CO2 pipeline aquifer Enhanced CO2 pipeline electricity for oil recovery homes & businesses NATIONAL BOUNDARY CO2 ships CO2 Electric Central & vehicles northern North Sea aquifers Cross-border pipelines CO2 Reused natural gas pipeline Export decarbonised Onshore CO2 power storage CO2 1-3 201 0 km n. infoCO2 ships e sto a ulw w w.p : ©w Depleted phic gra gas field CO2 NATIONAL BOUNDARY Large aquifer Page 25
  • 25. Chapter 00 - Chapter title 1 - Introduction IntroductionPage 26 1 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 26. Chapter 00 - Chapter title Chapter 1 - Introduction1 Introduction 281.1 The role of CCS in meeting European CO2 reductions targets 281.2 The One North Sea project 291.3 Structure of the report 301. Reference notes Page 272. Reference notes
  • 27. Chapter 1 - Introduction 1 Introduction 2011-2020,2 approximately one third are located in the four NSBTF countries. The NSBTF countries therefore have the 1.1 The role of CCS in opportunities to become world leaders in CCS implementation in the next decade meeting European and to capture a share of a potentially large global market (valued at potentially several CO2 reduction targets trillion dollars2) for CCS technologies and services in the future. Therefore, in addition to facilitating CO2 emission reduction from National, European and global models for carbon-intensive industries, the CCS industry keeping within levels of atmospheric CO2 could become an important export industry3. concentrations that could restrict climate change to within 2ºC of mean temperature Most European countries are expected to change conclude that Carbon dioxide remain reliant on fossil fuels beyond 2030. Capture and Storage (CCS) is likely to CCS allows the use of fossil fuels (especially be part of a cost-effective CO2 reduction coal) in power generation and industry in a strategy. The International Energy Agency carbon-constrained economy. For Europe (IEA, 2008) conclude that CCS could provide as a whole, the ability to use coal decreases 19% of world CO2 emissions abatement in reliance on natural gas for which security of 2050, and that without CCS, the costs of supply is an important concern. In the longer constraining emissions increase by 70%. term, CCS can also be applied to biomass McKinsey (2008) demonstrates that CCS power or biofuel production, potentially could provide 20% of European emissions resulting in “negative CO2 emissions”. abatement by 2030. Of more than 70 CCS demonstration projects proposed worldwide for the period Picture: iStockphoto © AlohaspiritPage 28 2 IEA CCS Roadmap (2009), available at 3 Scottish Enterprise (2005), Carbon capture and storage market opportunities;ns_type=pdf An Industrial Strategy for CCS in the UK is available at
  • 28. Chapter 1 - IntroductionTable 3: CCS demand in Europe in 2030 in four recent studies Region Capture Mt CO2/year modelled 2020 2030 2050 Reference IEA CCS OECD Europe 37 300 1000 roadmap 2009 Europe 40 400 Not determined McKinsey 2008 University of EU27 Not published 65-517 Not published Athens Primes model1.2 The One North Sea ProjectIn September 2009, the UK and Norwegian CO2 transport infrastructure.governments commissioned the ‘One NorthSea’ project on behalf of the North Sea Basin The study was led by Element Energy Ltd,Task Force. with significant input from Econ Pöyry, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate,The One North Sea project extends previous Cameron McKenna, The British Geologicalanalysis by the Task Force4 and aims to Survey, and Carbon Counts. This reportestablish a vision of the potential role of the presents the outcomes from the study,North Sea in the future deployment of CCS which was based on an extensiveacross Europe, and propose a strategy for its scenario development, modelling anddelivery. consultation with key stakeholders listed in the Acknowledgements. This documentThe key objectives of the study are to: represents the final report and major • Establish the likely demand for North deliverable from the study. The final report Sea CO2 storage, including when this will accommodates feedback received from arise. stakeholders on interim and draft final versions of the report. • Identify key government and industry actions and principles to support the management of transboundary CO2 flows and optimise the rapid development of4 Available at Page 29
  • 29. Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.3 Structure of the report The report is ordered as follows: • Section 2 provides an overview of current CCS activity within the European Union, and, the four countries of the North Sea Basin Task Force - Germany, Netherlands, Norway, and the UK. • Section 3 describes the approach taken to understanding the demand for storage, which involved scenario development, technical modelling and stakeholder engagement. The section includes a critical review on data quality, particularly with respect to estimating storage capacities. • Section 4 presents the results of CCS deployment scenarios. It includes analysis of the overall quantities and patterns of CO2 activity in the North Sea countries, and investigates the effect of restrictions on CO2 transport and storage within and between countries. • Section 5 analyses additional drivers for CCS development, including infrastructure re- use, EOR, shipping, and source clustering. • Section 6 presents legal and regulatory issues surrounding CCS deployment in Europe, with a focus on issues affecting cross-border transport and storage of CO2. • Section 7 brings together the preceding analysis, and suggests a vision for the development of CCS as a safe and cost-effective CO2 abatement technology for the North Sea region. • Section 8 lists the main barriers to delivering this vision. • Section 9 proposes a strategy for delivering this vision. • Section 10 lists the expert stakeholder group who provided input to this study. The report is supplemented with appendices that provide: • A technical description of the methodology used to estimate CO2 storage potentials with a critical review on the consistency of methodologies used to calculate CO2 storage capacity. • A technical description of the CCS demand scenarios and results identified in this study. • A map and description of proposed CCS demonstration projects in Europe. • A description of the North Sea Basin Task Force. • A list of important European CCS Research and Development programmes of relevance to the North Sea Basin Task Force. • A commercial perspective on legal and regulatory issues for integrated transport networks.Page 30
  • 30. Chapter 1 - Introduction Picture: iStockphoto © Vera Tomonkova Page 31
  • 31. Chapter 00 - Chapter title 2 - Overview Overview of current CCS activity in EuropePage 32 2 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 32. Chapter 00 - 2 - Overview Chapter Chapter title2 Overview of current CCS activity in Europe 342.1 European Union CCS initiatives 342.1.1 The CCS directive 342.1.2 EEPR funding for CCS demonstration 352.1.3 NER300 funding for CCS demonstration and innovative renewables 352.1.4 Funding CCS deployment via the EU-ETS 352.1.5 Funding research and development in CCS 362.1.6 EU CCS Network 362.2 CCS Activity in Norway 362.3 CCS Activity in the UK 372.3.1 Current and planned programmes and projects 392.4 CCS Activity in the Netherlands 392.5 CCS Activity in Germany 412.5.1 Current programmes and activities 411. Reference notes Page 332. Reference notes
  • 33. Chapter 2 - Overview 2 Overview of current 2.1.1 The CCS directive CCS activity in The CCS Directive, adopted in 2009, establishes a legal framework for the Europe environmentally safe geological storage of CO2 in the territory, exclusive economic zones To understand the potential for CO2 storage and continental shelves of EU member states. under the North Sea and the role of cross- Key elements of the framework are: border CO2 transport and storage in facilitating 1. CO2 exploration must only be carried this, this Chapter identifies relevant existing out with a permit. and planned EU, Norwegian, British, Dutch and German CCS policies and initiatives. 2. CO2 storage must only be carried out These will be the principal determinants of with a permit from a competent authority in CCS demand around the North Sea in the a Member State. Member States must put period up to and beyond 2020. in place (i) a system for granting permits objectively and transparently; and (ii) arrangements for financial security. 2.1 European Union 3. CO2 streams must consist CCS initiatives “overwhelmingly” of carbon dioxide. 4. During injection, operators must monitor The EU’s strategic energy technology storage sites – and competent authorities roadmap foresees an important role for must carry out routine inspections. CCS. The EU is directing resources5 towards developing the political, economic, social, 5. Operators remain responsible for on- technological, legal and environmental going monitoring, reporting and corrective foundations for safe and successful CCS measures, as well as obligations regarding demonstration and deployment. the surrender of allowances in the case of leakage and all preventative and remedial Of note, the European Technology Platform action. for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (known as ‘ZEP’), initiated by the European 6. Closure requires that (i) all available Commission in 2005, is an influential coalition evidence indicates that the stored CO2 will of European utilities, power companies, be completely and permanently contained; equipment suppliers, academics, and (ii) 20 years has elapsed since injection; environmental NGOs. Working with ZEP, the (iii) the site has been sealed and injection European Commission has developed CCS facilities have been removed; (iv) the legislation (the CCS directive), passed by operator has made a financial contribution the European Parliament, and the EU has to the anticipated cost of monitoring for agreed to co-fund a programme for CCS 30 years after closure. If the site is closed, demonstration. These are described below. the liabilities for monitoring and corrective On the basis of ZEP’s 2009 CCS knowledge measures, the surrender of allowances sharing proposal, the EU is launching its CCS in the case of leakage, and preventative project network.Page 34 5 For a recent comparison of investment in CCS by the EU, member states and industry, see
  • 34. Chapter 2 - Overview and remedial action are transferred to the 2.1.3 NER300 funding for competent authority. CCS demonstration and 7. Operators of CO2 networks provide innovative renewables non-discriminatory access to third parties, and may be required to provide additional The EU has agreed that 300 million network capacity in order to accept third emissions allowances will be set aside party connections. from the new entrants reserve to stimulate the construction and operation by the endTo date, no country has fully implemented the of 2015 of up to 12 commercial CCSCCS Storage Directive in national law. Some demonstration projects as well as Renewablestorage developers criticise the Directive for Energy demonstration projects across thecreating, in their view, onerous requirements EU. Proposals will need to be submitted inin respect of financing unclear and potentially 2010, with awards made by the end of 2011large post-closure costs and liabilities. and 2013. How quickly developers will beChallenges in managing liabilities for multiple able to access these funds and under whatusers injecting into different locations - or at contractual conditions remains unclear.different times - within the same storage unit,remain unresolved. 2.1.4 Funding CCS deployment via the EU-ETS2.1.2 EEPR funding for CCS demonstration From 2013, CCS will be included within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. AllowancesThe EU has approved the allocation of will not need to be surrendered for emissionsEur 1.05 billion from the European Energy that are avoided through the permanentProgramme for Recovery to the following storage of CO2 in licensed sites. TheCCS projects, which includes three projects situation for vertically integrated projects isin the NSBTF countries. therefore relatively straightforward. However, before 2030 the rules on CCS within the ETS • Pre-combustion capture at Powerfuel may need to be modified if transport and Ltd, Hatfield, UK storage infrastructure become increasingly • Oxyfuel and post-combustion networked, spans multiple countries, at Vattenfall Europe Generation, includes commercial applications for CO2 or Jaenschwalde, Germany involves sources capturing CO2 derived from biomass. • Post-combustion CCS at Maasvlakte, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Uncertainty about the long-run price of emissions allowances under the EU ETS is • Post-combustion CCS at PGE the largest financial risk facing commercial Elektrownia Belchatow, Belchatow, Poland development of CCS projects and infrastructure. Unlike renewables, energy • Oxyfuel CCS at Endesa Generacion, efficiency, and even nuclear energy, for Compostilla, Spain which technology and commercial risks are • Post-combustion CCS at Enel smaller, CCS project revenues are critically Ingegneria e prod, Porte Tolle, Italy dependent on prices for avoided CO2, and additional incentives prior to commercial roll out. Capital intensive investments, highly Page 35
  • 35. Chapter 2 - Overview uncertain revenues, and novel technology/ In January 2008, Gassnova SF, a state- supply chain combinations together owned enterprise designed to manage discourage investment in CCS. the government’s investments in CCS, was established. Its responsibilities include 2.1.5 Funding research and research and development funding advice development in CCS (CLIMIT programme, see below), large-scale CO2 projects development and execution, The EU also supports CCS research and acting as an adviser to the Norwegian and development projects through its government. framework programme (FP5, FP66, FP7). A list of collaborative European CCS research Gassnova’s projects include: programmes is provided in the Appendix. • The European CO2 Test Centre 2.1.6 EU CCS Network Mongstad (TCM): construction of TCM started in June 2009 and the centre The European Commission is establishing should be operational by the end of 2011. a CCS Network ( The plant will have the capacity to capture The main objective of the network will be up to 0.1 Mt CO2 /year. to facilitate knowledge sharing among participants and stakeholders in the • The full scale CO2 capture plant from gas turbine power at Mongstad, which demonstration programme. should become operational in 2014 and 2.2 CCS Activity will have capacity to capture 1.3 million tons of CO2 . in Norway • Large-scale CO2 capture from a gas turbine power plant at Kårstø; and Norway has undertaken to reduce its • The large-scale CO2 transportation greenhouse gas emissions by 30% of its and storage from Kårstø and Mongstad 1990 emissions by 2020. It has also pledged projects to subsea storage locations, most to achieve carbon neutrality, reducing global likely the Utsira or Johanson formations. greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 100% of its own emissions by 2050. CCS Gassnova SF together with the Research is viewed as an important tool to achieve this Council of Norway administers a Research goal. and Development Programme on Power Generation with Carbon Capture and Storage Norway has 13 years’ experience of CCS (CLIMIT). The programme provided funding up operations, which started in 1996 with CO2 to NOK 68.5 m (£7.5 m) in 2009 for activities storage at the Sleipner field in the North aimed at research, development, and Sea (10 Mt CO2 has been stored so far). A demonstration up to early commercialisation second project at the Snøhvit field for liquefied of CCS solutions for emissions from natural gas in the Barents Sea began in 2008. fossil fuel-based energy production. The 0.7 Mt CO2/year are separated from natural programme has a total budget of NOK 180 m gas onshore every year and re-injected in the in 2010, and the mandate will be extended to formation below the seabed. These projects include CO2 emissions from industry sources. were permitted by the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) under the Pollution In Norway, the government plays a very active Control Act. role in executing CCS projects which involvesPage 36 6 EU FP6 funding for CCS has been of the order of 70 million Euros or 17 million Euros per year of the programme
  • 36. Chapter 2 - Overviewcontracting with companies to build theprojects (through Gassnova SF) and providing 2.3 CCS Activity infull funding. the UKHowever, the Gassnova projects have stillencountered challenges that may be relevant The UK has a legally binding target of at leastfor projects elsewhere: an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, as well as a reduction in emissions • Costs for storage evaluation may prove of at least 34% by 2020, against a 1990 higher than initially expected. baseline. Analysis by the UK’s Committee • The timescale for developing projects on Climate Change suggests that complete has been longer than originally estimated. decarbonisation of the electricity sector by Political agreement has taken longer, 2030 is essential to meet the 2050 target. as have the collection, processing and The UK government acknowledges that CCS interpretation of seismic data and securing could play a major role in decarbonising the agreements with oil- and gas industry electricity sector, and has taken significant stakeholders. steps to encourage its demonstration and • Restrictions have emerged on storage deployment. The gross value added to the potential, which is therefore lower in UK from new advanced coal-fired power capacity than originally envisaged, and generation including with CCS industry has on where and when CO2 injection will be been estimated8 as £20-40 billion in total allowed which has added to storage costs. between 2010 and 2030 withCCS as part of petroleum activities (whether • £1 – 2 bn/year in 2020 with 2,100for EOR or permanent storage) can today CCS-related jobsbe regulated under the legal regime for • £2 – 4 bn/year in 2030 with up topetroleum activities, i.e. the Petroleum 30,000 CCS-related jobsAct and Regulations (including HSE), thePollution Control Act and Regulations, and the The Energy Act 2008 creates a legal andCO2-levies Act. Since Norway has passed regulatory framework for CCS, whichlegislation for a national emission trading implements part of the EU CCS Directive.scheme to allow it to link the EU ETS, it will Implementation of the recent Marine andlikely harmonise rules for CO2 storage with Coastal Act and Planning Act should alsothose in the EU ETS. streamline the planning process.The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) Highlights of current UK policy are:has worked for some years on the mappingof offshore CO2 storage sites related to • DECC has recently published its “Aspecific CCS projects. In 2009 The Ministry Business Strategy for Carbon Captureof Petroleum and Energy asked NPD to start and Storage” and selected projects fora mapping programme and present possible which it will fund the detailed designsecure geological sites for storing CO27. (FEED) stage prior to selecting the winner of its competition to demonstrate the full chain of CO2 post-combustion capture, transport and storage on a 300 MWnet coal-fired power plant.7 Page 37 html?id=5794598 AEA (2009) Future value of coal carbon abatement technologies to UK industry, available at Media/viewfile.ashx?FilePath=What%20we%20doUK%20energy%20supplyEnergy%20mixCarbon%20capture%20and%2 storage1_20090617131417_e_@@_coalcatfuture.pdf&filetype=4
  • 37. Chapter 2 - Overview Picture: iStockphoto © OversnapPage 38
  • 38. Chapter 2 - Overview • In 2010 DECC will select the winner The UK has a well-developed offshore of its competition to demonstrate the full infrastructure from decades of hydrocarbon chain of CO2 post-combustion capture, production, with potential for re-use in transport and storage on a 300 MWnet CCS projects. However, in view of the UK’s coal-fired power plant. obligations under OSPAR, the Department of Energy and Climate Change expects the • Commitment to funding a further three removal of disused installations not to be CCS demonstration projects over the delayed unless a robust case demonstrates next decade through a levy on electricity there is a specific reuse opportunity suppliers. or other justifiable reason for deferring • Carbon capture readiness is mandatory decommissioning. for all new generating plants with a rated electrical output of 300 MWnet or more. 2.3.1 Current and planned programmes and projects • A new coal policy framework has been established, emphasising (i) there will be The previous NSBTF study identified that no new coal power stations without CCS, the UK has clusters of large CO2 sources and (ii) there will be a long term transition near the Humber, Teesside, Merseyside, to clean coal power. Firth of Forth and Thames estuaries.9 Importantly, regional studies have now beenThe UK Government recently consulted conducted to understand the opportunitieson the regulatory regime for offshore for CCS for businesses, including sharedstorage. The proposals adapt thinking from CCS infrastructure in the Humber, Scotland,hydrocarbon field development and envisage Thames estuary, North East and East ofthe following sequence of permissions: England. 1. For non-intrusive exploration, a At a national scale, work is being undertaken combined Petroleum and Energy Act to better characterise the storage sites in the licence is sufficient. No Crown Estate UK Continental Shelf. The £3.5 million UK lease is required. Storage Appraisal Project, funded through the Energy Technologies Institute10, will 2. For intrusive exploration, an carry out a detailed review of potential sites exploration/appraisal permit and Crown suitable for storing CO2 offshore to assess Estate lease are required. the realisable storage capacity at individual 3. A carbon storage permit can be sites. issued once a field development plan (including monitoring and remediation plans) are submitted. A Crown Estate 2.4 CCS Activity in the lease would be additionally required for the injection period. Netherlands 4. After post-closure monitoring (likely The Dutch government aims to achieve a 20 years), there can be handover to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of State, which takes responsibility for post- 30% by 2020 and expects CCS to play an handover monitoring. important role as part of its strategy to create a sustainable energy sector.9 Element Energy et al. (2007) Development of a CO2 transport and storage network in the North Sea. Page 3910
  • 39. Chapter 2 - Overview To help create the conditions for large-scale expensive. deployment of CCS in the Netherlands, the Ministries of Economic Affairs and Housing, The Mining Act is being amended to reduce Spatial Planning and Environment established conflicts of interest between CCS and a CCS Taskforce in March 2008. hydrocarbon exploration activity. In June 2009, the Dutch Government The FP7 study, “NearCO2” led by ECN12, is outlined a number of preconditions for the examining public engagement around CCS development of future large-scale projects, projects. Concerns raised by the public for including: Shell’s onshore CO2 storage project in the Barendrecht field include safety, monitoring, • Further research to develop large-scale property values, as well as more general capture technology while reducing costs; concerns that CCS is unnecessary or ineffective - however the Dutch Government • Development of a long-term and Shell remain committed to the infrastructure and storage strategy; Barendrecht project. • Evaluation of other measures to promote large-scale CCS, such as mandatory CASE STUDY CCS. The Rotterdam Climate Initiative • Clarity on the administrative and legal Since 2007, the city of Rotterdam, the framework for CCS. Rotterdam Port Authority, Deltalings (representing companies in the Rijnmond) This ‘policy letter’ has now been backed by and DCMR Environmental Protection Agency the Dutch Parliament. The Government aims have been working together, and now with to satisfy the first precondition by providing industrial partners, as the Rotterdam Climate financial support to the CATO2 CCS research Initiative (RCI), to realise a 50% CO2 emissions programme, to small-scale demonstration reduction in 2025 compared to 1990 levels. Two thirds of this reduction (20 Mt CO2/year) projects and also to the launch of large-scale is to be achieved through CCS. CCS projects in the Netherlands. In 2008 the Rotterdam Climate Initiative With Dutch effective storage capacity published a feasibility study that demonstrates distributed across a number of relatively small that 5 Mt CO2/year in 2015 with 20 Mt CO2/ fields and with complex issues on timing11 year by 2025 could be captured. the Government will in spring 2010 decide In 2009, RCI published a study that examines on a Masterplan for transport and storage capture, transport and storage options, infrastructure for CCS. This will address the costs and means of financing phased selection and scheduling of gas fields for development in more depth, including CO2 storage and the delegation of tasks considering alternative uses of CO2 such and responsibilities between the different as in greenhouses. The study confirms that stakeholders. Rotterdam offers a favourable location for a CCS network due to the high concentration of Current legislation on decommissioning of industrial emissions in the Port of Rotterdam hydrocarbon sites may hinder CCS: By 2020 area, the Port’s proximity to significant most surface facilities and wells will have been volumes of storage capacity, both offshore (on the Dutch continental shelf) and onshore, permanently abandoned, and access and and potential flexibility with respect to redevelopment may then become prohibitively transport.Page 40 11 Nogepa (2008) Potential for CO2 storage in depleted gas fields on the Dutch Continental Shelf 12 Presentation by D. Reiner at the 3rd Annual European Carbon Capture and Storage Summit on 18th November 2009. For further information see
  • 40. Chapter 2 - OverviewA portfolio of CCS pilots and large-scale The political discussion in Germany hasdemonstration projects are being developed focussed on longer term objectives forin the Northern Netherlands, involving Nuon, renewable energy, with concerns overRWE, Akzo Nobel, Advanced Power, SEQ, continued use of fossil fuels and the safetyElectrobel and Gasunie. €8 m has been of (onshore) storage sites. With safety issuesearmarked for work on transport, storage and being a key part of the political debate incommunication. Germany, the draft CCS Act proposed safety standards beyond those required by the CCS2.5 CCS Activity Directive: • Operators must provide post-closure in Germany security at storage sites for 30 years, 10 years longer than in the EU Directive.Germany’s integrated energy and climate • Operators must contribute to monitoringpackage aims to deliver a 30% cut in CO2 costs for a further 30 years after handover.emissions against a 1990 baseline. TheGovernment currently expects CO2 reduction 2.5.1 Current programmes andto be dominated by renewable energy and activitiesenergy efficiency, with some switching fromcoal to gas. The phasing out of nuclear The German government funds two researchenergy in Germany is currently under and development programmes:discussion. The environmental Ministry isaiming for ca. 100% renewable energy by • COORETEC is focussed on power plant2050. efficiency and capture.The German Government has adopted a • Geotechnologien is focussed on long-‘no-regrets’ strategy with the aim that CCS, term safe and environmentally friendlyincluding secure CO2 storage, is commercially CO2 storage and corresponding storageviable by 2020. Recommendations for action technologies.agreed by the German Cabinet in 2007 Pilot plants are testing capture technologiesinclude creating the legal framework for CCS, at Vattenfall’s Schwarze Pumpe and RWE’ssupporting demonstration projects, expanding Niederaussen facilities. These are small-scaleR&D activities on capture and storage, pilots with the latter capturing 300kg of CO2including site-specific research, and providing per hour.public information. Geological storage is being tested at theCapture is mainly governed by the Ketzin test site in Brandenburg, while theFederal Pollution Control Act (Bundes- national and regional geological surveysImmissionsschutzgesetz). Transport and started in 2008 a detailed study of capacitiesstorage are subject to various regulations in German sinks including the North Seaunder state building law, nature conservation, and mining law.Experience suggests that, in the short term,individual pipelines will be developed by theentities also running the power plant and/orthe storage site. Page 41
  • 41. Chapter 00 - Chapter title 3 - Predicting deployment of CCS Predicting deployment of CCS in the North Sea countriesPage 42 3 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 42. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCS Chapter 00 - Chapter title3 Predicting deployment of CCS in the North Sea countries 443.1 Our approach 453.2 CCS demand 453.3 Sinks 473.3.1 Limitations in the sink data 493.4 Source-sink matching 503.4.1 Scenarios for the deployment of CCS in the North Sea 511. Reference notes Page 432. Reference notes
  • 43. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCS 3 Predicting by public and private investment. Despite many uncertainties, existing national and EU deployment of policy commitments provide some clarity as to overall CCS demand up to 2020. There CCS in North Sea is much less clarity beyond 2020, and a countries range of deployment levels are possible. This chapter describes the approach used to develop scenarios for deployment of CCS The preceding analysis highlights the in the North Sea region between 2020 and demonstration efforts in Europe and 2050, in terms of the input data and the specifically in NSBTF countries, underpinned modelling methodology. Figure 4: Approach taken to identify cross-border CCS demand around the North Sea and requirements for NSBTF to facilitate optimum transport and storage networks. Identify key CCS drivers Develop scenarios for CCS demand Identify CCS investments in Literature review, power sector in each country workshops and economic for each scenario analysis Identify industry sources Transport and storgae scenarios Sources GIS database Source-sink matching for scenarios and sensitivities Sinks GIS database Transport network optimisation for scenarios SCCS study Sensitivity analysis NPD storage mapping Identification of investment, legal and regulatory barriers GeoCapacities to network optimisation Recommendations Key Previous Expert reviewed during the studies course of this studyPage 44
  • 44. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCS3.1 Our approach fragmented, regulated and regional initiatives, and the degree of CCS cost reduction possible.Projections for CCS demand and databasesfor CO2 storage potential in Europe were Nevertheless, three plausible, independent,developed as inputs into Element Energy’s and internally consistent market- and policy-source-sink matching model. The model was driven combinations were developed. Theserun to identify plausible source-sink matches combinations, named ‘mandatory’, ‘fragile’across Europe under a series of scenarios and ‘competitive’ are summarised in Tablereflecting the influence of key CCS drivers. 4 and their rationale described fully in theThis in turn was used to quantify cross-border appendix.volumes of CO2 associated with differentscenarios for 2020, 2030 and 2050. These combinations were used as inputs to Econ Pöyry’s Classic Carbon model, whichIn parallel, stakeholder workshops and is one of the leading models for predictinginterviews were conducted to review the investment in the power sector acrossinputs, approach and outputs. Europe. A full description of the Classic Carbon model is provided in the Appendix. The model was run to project the amounts3.2 CCS demand and possible locations of investment in CO2 capture in the power sector for eachThere are clearly continua in the extent to combination of inputs.which climate policies are implementedthrough global markets or throughTable 4: Summary of the market and policy combinations in 2030 used as inputs for the Classic Carbon model Driving force Mandatory Competitive Fragile Power demand High Business as usual Business as usual Renewables 90% of 2020 target 90% of 2020 target 100% of 2020 target CO2 cap 30% reduction 40% reduction 25% reduction relative to 1990 relative to 1990 relative to 1990 CCS costs 35% reduction 25% reduction 20% reduction relative to 2008 relative to 2008 relative to 2008 CCS efficiency 6% gas, 8% coal 8% gas, 10% coal 8% gas, 10% coal penalty Gas prices $19/MWh $22MWh $27/MWh Coal prices $70/tonne $70/tonne $70/tonne Known investments Known and new Known investments Nuclear only investments only New investments Mandatory CCS from 2020 None None Page 45
  • 45. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCS Mandatory Competitive Fragile projection projection projection PRIMES 2030 2030 2030 2030 Country (MtCO2/yr) (MtCO2/yr) (MtCO2/yr) (MtCO2/yr) Denmark 10 4 4 5-7 Germany 219 4 23 32 - 186 Netherlands 59 1 27 5 - 14 Norway 1 1 1 not included United Kingdom 27 13 13 1 - 62 TOTAL 315 23 95 43 - 269 CO2 price in 2030 (€/t) €14 €47 €42 €24 - 60 Table 5: Projected CO2 capture investment from the Classic Carbon and PRIMES models Table 5 shows the projected capture Force and are not correlated with current investment and resulting CO2 prices for CCS activity. the ‘mandatory’, ‘fragile’, and ‘competitive’ combinations, and also compares CCS • However the demand in 2030 is highly investment predicted from the Primes model sensitive to assumptions for the North Sea (described below). region as a whole and within individual countries. The range of projected capture A detailed analysis of the projections, including demand in 2030 spans at least one order commentary on the interdependence of of magnitude. countries, is provided in the Appendix. The main conclusions are: • The overall range and country-specific distribution of outputs from the Classic • Projected demand for capture in 2030 Carbon model are consistent with the around the North Sea could be as high as outputs from the Primes model, developed 315 Mt CO2/year. by the University of Athens, which is the standard model used by the European • With the ‘mandatory’ combination, the Commission. projected capture requirements differ by more than an order of magnitude between • Projected CO2 prices vary substantially, the countries of the North Sea Basin Task posing a substantial risk for investors.Page 46
  • 46. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCS3.3 Sinks to underlying data is often restricted, this makes comparing datasets between countries difficult, if not impossible. Importantly, there isAlthough capture is the dominant cost, currently no universally accepted database ofthe amount and geographic distribution of CO2 storage potential in Europe, or even in thestorage capacity are key factors determining North Sea, developed in a consistent, robustthe potential for cost-effective CCS. A full and comparable manner. All stakeholdersdescription of how CO2 is stored and how caution that many published estimates forstorage potential is assessed is provided in storage capacity should be treated with a highthe Appendix. degree of scepticism. Consistent and better validated methodologies for North Sea storageCO2 can be stored in depleted hydrocarbon capacity estimation would be important butfields as well as deep saline formations are lacking.(aquifers). Hydrocarbon fields are relatively wellcharacterised, but there may be commercial The sink GIS database created in this studyand legal challenges in accessing the storage draws heavily on the EU GeoCapacity reasonable cost, and there may be This provides a reasonably up-to-date andtechnical concerns, such as injection rates mostly internally consistent estimate ofinto low pressure gas fields or on seal integrity European sink capacity. The GeoCapacityfor fields with multiple wells. Competition project was an FP6-funded project. Howeverfor use of depleted hydrocarbon fields with the ability to access these storage data istemporary natural gas storage is theoretically subject to complex issues on intellectualfeasible, although differences in technical property. The scope of this study was limitedrequirements work against this. to those countries that were willing to share data.15 GeoCapacity built on work carriedThe storage potential of saline aquifers could out under the previous GESTCO project,be very large, but these are insufficiently completed in 2003, and attempted to assessunderstood. The complete appraisal of an total sink capacity in the EU countries usingaquifer could be very resource intensive – comparable assumptions.lasting many years and cost several tens ofmillions of Euros each13. GeoCapacity suggests a total storage capacity in depleted hydrocarbon fieldsA few studies have attempted to estimate and saline aquifers of over 300 Gt acrossthe CO2 storage potential across Europe Europe. Of this capacity, 55% is found in theand in sectors of the North Sea. With four countries of the NSBTF, rising to 60%very limited operational experience in CO2 when Denmark is included. For the NSBTFgeological storage worldwide, there is only countries plus Denmark, nearly 80% of thislimited agreement on how storage should sink capacity is under the North Sea evaluated. Often studies carried out bydifferent geological surveys use different In addition to the sink data from GeoCapacity,assumptions on the difference between this study employed additional data from twotheoretical versus realisable capacity, for other sources to overcome limitations in thatexample rules-of-thumb multiplication factors work. First, additional data on Scottish aquifersfor storage efficiency (which can be defined from a recent study carried out by the Scottishas the proportion of the pore space that Carbon Capture Consortium , were addedis available for storage once geological to the UK data, which is now significantlylimitations are considered)14. Since full access larger than that published previously16. The13 See for example van den Broek et al. (2009) Feasibility of storing CO2 in the Utsira formation as part of a long-term Dutch CCS Page 47 strategy. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control14 Some guidelines for capacity estimation have already been developed, e.g. Development of Storage Coefficients for CO2 storage in Deep Saline Formations (IEA, 2009) and Storage Capacity Estimation, Site Selection and Characterisation for CO2 storage projects (CO2CRC, 2008)15 The project team encountered a notable reluctance from many national geological surveys to share sink data. Partly this is due to intellectual property and commercial concerns. In some cases withholding data appeared to be based on limited confidence in the methodology/data. The geographic scope of the project was restricted as only the geological surveys of Britain, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain and Estonia consented to sharing data within this project.
  • 47. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCS default storage efficiency in the SCCS study is interfering with hydrocarbon production as assumed as 2%. With this assumption, these discussed above. aquifers add 43 Gt of CO2 storage to the total in GeoCapacity. The Scottish Study also Table 6 and Table 7(next page) show identifies a scenario where storage efficiency the CO2 storage capacities in depleted is only 0.2% - in this case the aquifer hydrocarbon fields and saline aquifers in the capacity would be 4.3 Gt CO2. Secondly, GIS database used for this study. Although the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) these data represent the best available for this provided updated data on Norwegian sink study, the estimates should be treated with capacity17. Consideration of the potential for appropriate caution and may represent upper conflicts of interest with existing hydrocarbon limits. The appendix describes the basis of the production by NPD resulted in the reduction sink assessment in more detail. The transport of the overall aquifer capacity from ca. 150 and storage workshops and stakeholder Gt to 100 Gt. Depending on uncertain close interviews during this study concluded that of production dates, possibly only half of the the use of numerous small sinks is unlikely revised capacity may be available by 2030. to be attractive for CO2 storage from large The remainder would be available by 2050 commercial-scale projects in 2030 that would when conflicts with existing hydrocarbon likely each capture several million tonnes a production are likely to have ceased. year. This study follows the stakeholders’ recommendations that, for economic reasons, For hydrocarbon fields, CO2 storage cannot those sinks with a capacity less than 30 Mt occur before the close of hydrocarbon (in other words those that cannot store 1 Mt production, except in the case of CO2- per year for 30 years) are excluded from the enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. The close analysis19. No Close of Production data were of production dates are often commercially provided for this study for the hydrocarbon sensitive, as well as heavily dependent on fields in Germany, the Netherlands, or future fossil fuel prices, technologies and Denmark. revisions to reserve estimates. DECC and the NPD estimated close of production The total storage available in hydrocarbon dates for British and Norwegian hydrocarbon fields in the GIS database is nearly 20 Gt fields respectively, although an uncertainty in 2030 in Norway, Germany, Denmark, range of up to 5 – 20 years was noted. the UK and the Netherlands, rising to over Based on a published study18, the close 28 Gt by 2050 as additional fields are of production date for all gasfields in the decommissioned. Although more uncertain, Netherlands was assumed as ca. 2023, the storage capacity of saline aquifers in the except for the Groningen giant gas field, database is considerably higher, with over 150 which was assumed to close after 2050 Gt available in 2030, rising to over 200 Gt by and was therefore excluded from this study. 2050. Over 70% of this capacity is in the UK In the absence of close of production data and Norway. The timing of storage capacity for Denmark, Germany and other countries, in the Netherlands is highly dependent on the it was assumed that depleted hydrocarbon close of production of hydrocarbon fields. fields would become available for storage from 2030 onwards. The same assumption was made for saline aquifers, except for those in Norway which NPD has identified asPage 48 16 Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage (2009) – Opportunities for CO2 storage around Scotland 17 The storage capacity in oil and gas fields are reduced whereas aquifer potential is now higher than previously estimated in NSBTF (2007) Development of a CO2 transport and storage network in the North Sea. The aquifer capacity is however reduced compared to the GESTCO report, as some aquifers have been excluded 18 NOGEPA (2008) Potential for CO2 storage in depleted gasfields on the Dutch continental shelf 19 The impact of this simplifying assumption is largest on the Netherlands where there are a large proportion of fields below the 30 Mt CO2 cut-off
  • 48. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCSTable 6: Modelled Mt CO2 storage capacity in depleted hydrocarbon fields in the GIS database with 30Mt filterCountry 2030 storage (Mt) 2050 storage (Mt) ReferenceDenmark 753 GeoCapacityGermany 1816 GeoCapacityNetherlands 1532 GeoCapacityNorway 4283 6302 NPDUK 7141 7910 GeoCapacityTOTAL 15525 18313Table 7: Modelled Mt CO2 storage capacity in saline aquifers in the GIS database Country 2030 storage (Mt) 2050 storage (Mt) Reference Denmark 16672 GeoCapacity Germany 27120 GeoCapacity Netherlands 428 GeoCapacity Norway20 48488 97059 NPD GeoCapacity United Kingdom 60971 and SCCS (2% efficiency) TOTAL 153689 2022603.3.1 Limitations in geological characterisation, and differences in methodologies. This uncertainty could be the sink data resolved by a step change improvement in the level of analytical effort and operationalThe approach outlined above is based on experience in CO2 injection, migration,the best available data within the timescale long-term performance of storage.and resources available within this study.Estimates of sink capacities span several Discussions with stakeholders identified theorders of magnitude. This is due to limited most important sensitivities as restrictions20 Data for Norwegian aquifers were revised by NPD. This revision included an assessment of which aquifers are located to current Page 49 and planned hydrocarbon exploration activity. It is assumed that these sinks are unavailable before 2050
  • 49. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCS in onshore storage, due to public uncertainty, • Since it is possible that an individual low aquifer availability and low hydrocarbon source could be selected by more than field availability. The impacts of these are one sink at the scoring stage, the sinks described within the Results chapter. are then allowed to compete with one another. This results in the sources being matched with the sink with the best 3.4 Source-Sink score, for example because it is closer matching or because the capacity of the second sink has already been allocated to other sources. The sources and sinks databases formed • These source-sink matches are then inputs to a network model developed by exported back to the mapping software. Element Energy, which matches sources The model provides summary outputs of and sinks under different assumptions, for total matched capacities for each country example the availability of storage sites or the in 2030 and 2050, as well as the cross overall demand for CCS. This network model border flows of CO2. builds on the previous NSBTF analysis of pipeline infrastructure9, and has been used The architecture of the model is shown in and enhanced through a number of projects Figure 5 (next page). to assess the role of clusters versus point to point pipelines. The methodology used in the model is as follows: • The sinks and sources databases, including locations, capacities and availability dates, are imported into ArcMap, a Geographical Information System (GIS). • ArcMap is used to select and record the distances to the nearest thirty sources for each sink. This is repeated for each CCS demand scenario, and the resulting distance matrices are imported into the network model. • The model scores each source and sink combination based on proximity, the size of the emitter, whether or not the sink has sufficient capacity or the pipeline crosses national boundaries or is partially offshore. A project lifetime of 30 years is assumed, so sinks must have sufficient capacity to store 30 years’ worth of emissions from a particular source to be matched up by the model algorithm.Page 50
  • 50. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCSFigure 5: Methodology for source-sink matching Source and sinks database Source sink scoring rules (scenario dependent) (weightings based on size, distance, cross-borders etc) Sinks ‘choose’ 30 nearest sources for detailed analysis Analysis of source/sink 2020 Demonstrations combinations - 10 best Feedback combinations selected for each sink Competition between sinks for best sources Maps, CO2 flows, cross-border volumes3.4.1 Scenarios for the between three of these scenarios, termed deployment of CCS in the ‘Low’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Very High’, reflecting very pessimistic, neutral and very optimistic North Sea assumptions respectively on the impacts ofTo investigate the role of cross-border drivers.CO2 transport and storage between the ‘Low’ scenarios, whereby CCS deploymentNorth Sea countries, diverse scenarios and is negligible in 2030 might arise if CCSsensitivities of CCS deployment between technology demonstration is unsuccessful2015 and 2050 were examined by the in the period up to 2030, if costs for CCSproject team, reflecting assumptions on increase substantially, and if there arethe nature of key drivers and progress in widespread economic, legal, regulatory,removing barriers as identified through the political or social obstacles to implementingstakeholder consultation. CCS projects. The ‘Low’ scenarios areEach scenario makes different assumptions not discussed further in this report as theyabout overall CCS demand, the pose no requirement for cross borderdevelopment of transport infrastructure, and CO2 transport and storage, and require nothe availability of storage. Scenarios are not further actions on the part of the membersintended to represent predictions – rather of the North Sea Basin Task Force tothey are used to help inform decision-making facilitate transboundary transport or storagein a subject with significant uncertainty. For infrastructure or legislation.simplicity, key insights can be summarised Page 51
  • 51. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCS ‘Mandatory’ CCS Projection ‘Fragile’ Scenario from Classic from Classic Carbon Model Carbon Model Revise following Revise following stakeholder stakeholder feedback feedback Unrestricted Restricted database Scenario-dependent database database Scenario-dependent database of of potential of potential sources, (including of potential potential sources (no industrial) sinks industrial) sinks Source-sink matching Source-sink matching assessment assessment Source and sink selection Source and sink selection Revised national CCS potential Revised national CCS potential in ‘Very High’ scenario in ‘Medium’ scenario Figure 6: Development of Very High and Medium CCS deployment scenarios The outputs from the Classic Carbon model CO2 can be stored in both on- and off-shore were reviewed with local stakeholders in the sinks. The high demand for CCS in this UK, Netherlands, Norway, Germany and scenario and high certainty on storage leads Denmark, to prepare sources databases for to co-ordination of transport infrastructure ‘Very High’ and ‘Medium’ CCS scenarios deployment, with clusters of sources sharing (which include transport and storage) are trunk pipelines to connect to CO2 sinks. described below. The ‘Medium’ scenario reflects more The ‘Very High’ scenario reflects a world cautious assumptions at every stage of where CCS becomes technically proven the CCS chain. Demand for CCS and within the next decade, and there is hence investment in capture equipment is sufficient regulatory certainty and financial substantially lower, due to weak incentives incentives to create high demand for the and strong competition from other CO2 technology between 2020 and 2030 and abatement measures. It is assumed that beyond, including from industrial sources. only 10% of the published capacity of Meanwhile, uncertainty surrounding sink each aquifer is available for storage in this capacities is reduced through widespread scenario, due to limited sink mapping. surveys and mapping exercises, so that all Furthermore, it is assumed that no CO2 of this capacity is available for CO2 storage. storage occurs in onshore sinks. In addition, Additionally, it is assumed that robust it is assumed that CO2 transport is restricted agreements on the transport of CO2 and compared with the ‘Very High’ scenario, and storage across borders are in place, and no cross-border transport is permitted.Page 52
  • 52. Chapter 3 - Predicting deployment of CCSThe input conditions ‘Medium’ and ‘Very In addition to the two main scenarios,High’ scenarios are summarised in Table 8. a sensitivity analysis was conducted toThese scenarios are intended to show that assess the effects of changes to individualvery different paths for the growth of CCS in assumptions on CCS demand or storagethe North Sea countries are possible in the and transport within the ‘Very High’ scenario.period 2020 to 2030. Scenario CCS demand Transport Storage Very high Integrated (inc. cross-border if Unrestricted – all depleted (Mandatory projection. needed) hydrocarbon fields and salineVery High Sources database includes aquifers in database are industrial sources) matured and assumed can be fully accessed. ‘Fragile’ Mostly point-to-point up to No onshore storage permitted 2030 Medium No industrial sources No cross-border transport Aquifer storage limited to 10% before 2050 of published capacity due to limited maturation Low Negligible Highly restricted Very low availabilityTable 8: Summary of transport and storage inputs for the CCS deployment scenarios Page 53
  • 53. Chapter 00 - Chapter title 4 - Results ResultsPage 54 4 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 54. Chapter 00 - Chapter title Chapter 4 - Results4 Results 564.1 2020 – Demonstrations 564.2 2030 – ‘Medium’ Scenario 584.3 2030 – ‘Very High’ Scenario 604.4 Sensitivity analysis for 2030 scenarios 624.4.1 Cross-border transport 634.4.2 Storage restrictions 634.4.3 Investment in CO2 capture 644.4.3 Conclusions from sensitivity analysis 644.5 CCS in 2050 651. Reference notes Page 552. Reference notes
  • 55. Chapter 4 - Results 4 Results between 2010 and 2020. These are likely to include projects distant from the North Sea, for example in Spain, Italy and Poland. This chapter shows the results of the demand As also described in section 2, the UK estimation. Four sets of results are presented. and Norway have made clear their own additional funding commitments towards CCS • The first section presents assumptions demonstration. on CCS deployment between 2010 and 2020 and is based largely on announced Figure 7 shows the expected CCS demonstrations. demonstration projects in the North Sea countries in 2020. In many cases, while the • The second and third sections describe emission source is known, the choice of store two alternative deployment paths between for the demonstrations is not publicly available 2020 and 2030, based on either ‘Medium’ information. For these projects, sources have or ‘Very High’ growth trajectories of the been connected to the nearest suitable sink industry. within the GIS database21. • The final set of results shows a long- term projection of CCS deployment in 2050, based on optimistic assumptions Picture: iStockphoto © Mayumi Terao about CCS demand and transport and storage restrictions. 4.1 2020 – Demonstrations Given the long development times for large-scale CCS projects and the current uncertainty over both technical and economic aspects of the technology, large scale CCS deployment before 2020 is assumed dominated by demonstration projects, supported largely by public sector funding. The demand modelling conducted in this study suggests that there will be no purely commercially driven roll-out occurring before this date even in the most optimistic scenarios. As described in section 2, the EU has committed to partly supporting up to 12 demonstration projects to be operationalPage 56 21 Progressive Energy at Teesside (UK), and Vattenfall at Jaenschwalde (Germany), have identified alternative storage locations that are not listed in the GeoCapacities databases
  • 56. Chapter 4 - Results Legend graphic: © ElementEnergy 2010 2020 Sinks 30 year annual capacity (Mt/yr) <2.5 2.5-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-50 50+ Sources Power sector source 2020 Demonstartions Large uncertainty over pipeline routes and CO2 injection locations 0 500 1000 KilometresFigure 7: Map of 2020 Demonstrations projects2020 Highlights: northern France, Sweden or Finland to • The modelling predicts overall CCS UK, Norwegian or Dutch sinks, and from demand in 2020 is approximately 30 Mt/ the Netherlands to Denmark for CO2- yr in the North Sea countries – these are enhanced oil recovery. It is not clear how ‘policy-backed’ investments rather than well developed these proposals are. purely commercially driven. • Demonstrations could choose to • Cross-border transport of CO2 between transport CO2 across borders due to NSBTF members before 2020 may occur faster permitting times in neighbouring but is not predicted to be necessary or jurisdictions, lower cost or other important. This is primarily because each transport barriers, or if domestic storage country has sufficient matched domestic opportunities were restricted22. Source capacity. clusters and shared infrastructure will be uncommon by 2020, although careful • Some stakeholders nevertheless design and co-ordination could result in express interest in cross-border CO2 demonstration pipelines nucleating larger transport beginning after 2016, possibly networks developed between 2020 and by ship, from Germany, Belgium, 2030.22 Provided there were not restrictions on cross-border CO2 transport and storage Page 57
  • 57. Chapter 4 - Results 4.2 2030 – ‘Medium’ Figure 8 (next page) shows plausible source- sink matches in the medium scenario in Scenario 2030, corresponding to a total of 46 Mt CO2/ yr stored in 2030 in the NSBTF countries and Denmark. The ‘Medium’ scenario combines moderate drivers for CCS demand (i.e. weak CO2 caps The UK and Norway are not affected by and limited cost reductions) with plausible the onshore storage limitation. Subject to restrictions on cross-border and integrated hydrocarbon fields being available, reduced transport networks, and onshore and aquifer aquifer capacity is unlikely to be limiting in storage as a result of limited preparation in the 2030 in the UK or Norway in the event of low period before 2030. Transport and storage demand. The restrictions on transport and are ‘cherry-picked’, i.e. developed on a point storage are particularly important for Germany to point basis to match the requirements of and Holland in this scenario. each source. Table 9: Development of ‘Medium Scenario’ Country Germany UK Netherlands Norway Unconstrained Mt CO2/yr in 2030 in ‘Fragile’ combination 23 13 27 1 using Classic Carbon Realistic if Increase required Increase to reflect Stakeholder Represents cross-border to reflect regional national ambitions feedback on demand maximum transport is ambitions for CCS for possible levels demand allowed from industry industrial sources Revised demand for ‘Medium’ Scenario following source-sink 5 15 10 7 matching with transport and storage restrictions Impact of transport and storage restrictions in Restrictive Negligible impact Restrictive Negligible impact ‘Medium’ ScenarioPage 58
  • 58. Chapter 4 - Results Legend graphic: Sinks © ElementEnergy 2010 30 year annual capacity (Mt/yr) <2.5 2.5-5 5 Mt/yr 5-10 10-15 5 Mt/yr 15-20 10 Mt/yr 20-50 50+ Sources 5 Mt/yr Power sector source 10 Mt/yr 2020 Demonstrations 2030 Source-sink matches 5 Mt/yr 5 Mt/yr Large uncertainty over pipeline routes and CO2 injection locations 0 500 1000 KilometresFigure 8: Map of source-sink connections in 2030 – ‘Medium’ ScenarioKey points for • If CCS demand is limited, integrated2030 ‘Medium’ scenario: clusters of sources or sinks are less relevant to improving economics or • CCS in Germany and the Netherlands is extending capacity. sensitive to the ability to take advantage of low cost onshore storage or cross-border • Transport and storage infrastructure can transport. develop in a more opportunistic manner without the need for co-ordinated strategic • Restrictions on storage capacity or control. cross-border transport are unlikely to significantly retard CCS in the UK or Norway in 2030. Page 59
  • 59. Chapter 4 - Results 4.3 2030 – ‘Very High’ identified in the Classic Carbon model with sufficient capacity in German and Dutch sinks Scenario (above 30 Mt CO2 listed in the GeoCapacity database) using pipeline networks that do not entail pipeline lengths that would be If CCS demonstration projects are successful considered excessive for 2030. during the 2010s, accelerated commercial deployment could follow, with large volumes Conversely the review of regional CCS studies of CO2 transported by 2030. In the ‘Very and the stakeholder feedback revealed High’ scenario, which is characterised by capture potential in industrial clusters – which very high CCS demand and low restrictions has led to increases for the UK and Norway on transport and storage, over 270 Mt/yr are compared to the values projected in the stored by NSBTF countries in 2030. mandatory scenario. The overall Mt CO2/year described in the Figure 9 (next page) outlines plausible ‘Very High’ scenario falls slightly short of the flows of CO2 within and between NSBTF projection identified in the ‘mandatory’. From countries. In the interests of clarity, the a transport perspective, the main challenge 2020 demonstration projects are not shown is to match the high demand in Germany separately in the map, and are included within and the Netherlands (using the sources the clusters shown. Table 10: Development of ‘Very High Scenario’ Country Germany UK Netherlands Norway Predicted Mt CO2/yr in Mandatory scenario using Classic Carbon 219 27 59 1 Represents Increase required to Represents Increase required to Stakeholder upper limit – reflect regional upper limit – reflect national feedback on demand in suggests ambitions for CCS suggests ambitions for possible ‘Mandatory’ scenario reduce from industry reduce industrial sources Revised Mt CO2/yr demand for ‘Very High’ scenario following source-sink matching 160 60 40 7 and stakeholder feedback (no restrictions on storage)Page 60
  • 60. Chapter 4 - Results Legend - graphic: Sinks © ElementEnergy 2010 30 year annual capacity (Mt/yr) <2.5 2.5-5 5 Mt/yr 5-10 10-15 10 Mt/yr 15-20 20-50 50+ Source clusters 2030 20 Mt/yr 60 Mt/yr 40 Mt/yr Power sector source Industrial Sources 10 Mt/yr 43 Mt/yr 20 Mt/yr 40 Mt/yr 0 500 1000 KilometresFigure 9: Map of CCS transport and storage in 2030 – ‘Very high’ scenarioThe majority of the CO2 transported and may be to utilise the giant gas fields or salinestored originates in Germany and the aquifers in the UK or Norwegian sectors ofUK, which capture 160 Mt/yr and 60 Mt/ the North Sea. With the assumption thatyr respectively. The UK stores all captured cross-border agreements are in place, theCO2 in offshore sinks, mainly depleted modelling predicts that 50% of CO2 capturedhydrocarbon fields, while Germany stores up in the Netherlands is transported to sinks into 80 Mt/yr in onshore aquifers. the relatively nearby UK sector of the Southern North Sea, and the remainder stored withinThe analysis suggests that cross-border Dutch sinks. An alternative strategy identifiedtransport may be efficient for the Netherlands, by van den Broek (2009) is to transportdue to the very high demand for CCS Dutch CO2 to Norway for storage in the Utsirain the Netherlands in this scenario. The formation23. The latter may be more attractiveNetherlands captures 40 Mt/yr, equivalent if the available storage potential is more certainto a commitment of 1.2 Gt over 30 years. at the time that an investment decision needsThis is around half of the Dutch sink capacity to be made.recorded in the GeoCapacities database, or80% of the sink capacity when fields below It should be noted that the CCS demand in30 Mt CO2 capacity are excluded. This would this scenario implies a rapid increasing ofimply the need to completely fill the larger capacity between 2020 and 2030, equivalentsinks, or to connect individual sources to to a ten-fold increase in the amount of CO2clusters of smaller sinks. captured. This is similar to the increase in renewable electricity deployment that will beGiven the uncertainty surrounding sink required in many European countries in ordersuitability and availability, an alternative strategy to meet EU targets by 2020. If operated at23 Van den Broek et al. (2009) Feasibility of storing CO2 in the Utsira formation as part of a long term Dutch CCS Strategy. Page 61 International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.002
  • 61. Chapter 4 - Results high load factors, a relatively limited number of large sources could make large contributions 4.4 Sensitivity analysis to the overall capture amounts in this scenario. for 2030 scenarios The analysis shows that there are natural The results above show a large variation clusters of industrial and power sector in the total CO2 transported and stored in emissions within each country, particularly 2030, with over five times more CO2 stored in in the UK, Netherlands and Germany. As NSBTF countries in the ‘Very High’ scenario described in Section 2, many regional than in the ‘Medium’ scenario. The ‘Medium’ initiatives across the North Sea countries scenario contains a number of plausible are already laying the foundations for the restrictions on overall capture investment, development of large CO2 clusters in the cross-border transport and the availability of future. The role of clusters is described in storage. These restrictions affect the total CO2 more detail in Section 5.4. stored to differing degrees. Each one of these restrictions changes not only the total amount Key points from of CO2 captured and stored, but also the 2030 ‘Very High’ scenario: geographic distribution of capture activity and the length and cost of pipelines required to • Over 270 Mt/yr of CO2 are transported connect the sources to sinks. and stored by NSBTF countries in 2030. The figure and table below show the effect of • 60% of CO2 storage is under the North individual changes in the input assumptions. Sea itself, supplemented with onshore Each sensitivity is applied to the ‘Very High’ storage in Germany and Holland. scenario, holding all other assumptions • Cross-border transport comprises 10- constant. The ‘Medium’ scenario, which 15% of overall CO2 storage by 2030.24 combines all of these restrictions, is shown last for comparison (note the effects are not • In the ‘Very high’ scenario, there are additive). advantages to CCS projects sharing transport and storage infrastructure due to geographical aggregation of sources and sinks. Seven such clusters in the North Sea countries are responsible for 80% of CO2 transported in this scenario. • There is a large role for onshore storage of CO2, particularly in Germany, where 80 Mt/yr is stored in onshore saline aquifers in Germany. • The very high CCS demand suggests the need for a rapid ramping of capacity from demonstration volumes in 2020 to widespread, commercial-scale deployment in 2030.Page 62 24 If there is a preference to use a limited number of large offshore sinks, rather than multiple small sinks, the majority of cross-border transport would be from the Netherlands to the UK. CO2 from the Netherlands could potentially be transported to Norway if storage economics are significantly more favourable or with pipeline re-use
  • 62. Chapter 4 - Results % Cross-border Onshore Mt/yr Sensitivity Aquifer Cross- transport storage stored in capacity border permitted permitted 2030 flow High scenario Yes High Yes 273 10% No cross-border transport and storage No High Yes 253 0% agreements Low aquifer capacity Yes Reduced Yes 191 20% by 90% Low hydrocarbon field availability Yes High Yes 205 8% Restricted onsgore storage Yes High No 178 25% Low capture Yes High Yes 65 21% investment Medium scenario No Reduced No 46 0% by 90%Table 11: Summary of sensitivity analysis conducted on the Very High’ scenario4.4.1 Cross-border transport reduces the total CO2 stored in 2030 by 30%. This is due to the loss of two large clustersCross-border transport of CO2 is not a central in Germany, which connect to large aquifersfeature of networks in 2030, even in a ‘Very in the ‘Very High’ scenario. The cluster inHigh’ deployment scenario. Restricting cross- southern Germany, is unlikely to be feasibleborder transport in the model eliminates the without these aquifers, since it would requiretransport of up to 20 MtCO2/year from the a pipeline of 700 – 800 km to reach theNetherlands to the Southern North Sea sector nearest suitable storage sites. However, theof the UK continental shelf. This quantity can large Ruhr cluster in north-west Germany isbe stored in offshore sinks in the Netherlands, also dependent on large aquifers for 60 Mt/yrbut as Dutch storage capacity comprises of storage in the High scenario, but 20 Mt/yrmainly small sinks, this may require a cluster can be redirected to other sites. The UK andof sinks rather than a single giant gas field as Norway are unaffected by changes to aquiferin the UK. This is likely to increase costs for storage capacity in 2030, because the initialboth pipeline infrastructure and for detailed capacity was already very high.studies of the required sinks. In other words,restricting cross-border flows of CO2 does not Eliminating onshore storage of CO2 has anecessarily reduce the total quantity stored, similar effect to reducing capacities of salinebut is likely to increase costs. aquifers in terms of total CO2 flows. Again, it is only Germany that is seriously affected, since4.4.2 Storage restrictions it relies heavily on onshore storage in the High scenario. It is worth noting that either of theseThe second sensitivity shows the effect of restrictions could have the effect of bringingreducing the assumed storage capacities of forward the demand for storage capacityboth on- and off-shore aquifers by 90%. This under the central and northern North Sea. In Page 63
  • 63. Chapter 4 - Results other words, if economic conditions led to 4.4.4 Conclusions from high CCS demand in Germany but domestic sensitivity analysis: storage availability was limited, for example due to public opposition to onshore storage, • Where there are no restrictions on then transport of CO2 to Norway could be domestic storage and high aquifer developed in 2030. capacities are available, restricting cross- border transport has only a small effect 4.4.3 Investment in CO2 capture on total CO2 transported by 2030. Cross- border transport may allow access to The final sensitivity shows that while transport higher quality sinks with shorter pipelines, and storage restrictions can affect the but it is not necessary in 2030 from a geographic distribution and cost of CCS capacity point of view. activity, it is the overall demand for the technology from CO2 emitters that is the main • Restricting aquifer capacity reduces determinant of overall volumes. Switching to the total CO2 stored by 30%. Germany the ‘fragile’ CCS demand projection reduces is particularly affected, since it relies on total CO2 storage by 75% in 2030. Germany aquifers for much of its onshore storage shows the biggest change in CCS demand in 2030. Cross-border transport is since most of its uptake in the ‘Very High’ significantly higher (up to 25% of total Scenario was due to the mandation of CCS flows), as German CO2 is more likely to be from 2020 onwards. exported. This result also shows that if the overall • Restricting onshore storage has a similar demand for CCS is low, then any further effect, because German aquifers are the restrictions in transport and storage have only main form of onshore storage. a small effect on the total CO2 flows. In other words, if the overall demand for CCS is low, • Despite the uncertainties regarding sink then detailed mapping of aquifer capacities capacity, given its abundance, policies and agreements to allow cross-border that lead to high levels of CCS in 2030 CO2 transport are not critical to enable that can still be pursued by NSBTF countries if demand to be met. required. • If the overall demand for CCS is low, then comprehensive storage evaluation of the North Sea, with high organisation and co-operation between stakeholders including cross-border agreements are unnecessaryPage 64
  • 64. Chapter 4 - Results4.5 CCS in 2050The Medium and Very High scenarios CCS out to 2050, based on the assumptionsdescribed above show very different paths for in the ‘Very High’ scenario. The demand fordeployment of CCS in the North Sea region. CCS is assumed to be very high, and areIn the Very High scenario, the industry grows in-line with 2050 projections from the IEA’srapidly between the end of the demonstration 2009 CCS roadmap. In addition, transportphase to become a significant contributor to and storage continues to be unrestricted, withCO2 abatement by 2030, while in the Medium transport of CO2 across national boundariesscenario the technology remains at a much where required or where economicallysmaller scale, and more sensitive to the preferable.economics of individual projects, for exampledue to opportunities for EOR or the reuse of Figure 10 shows the flows of CO2 to andexisting infrastructure. from the North Sea countries in 2050. A large number of sources are available for storage inIn addition to these medium-term projections, this scenario, and so regional clusters of CO2we investigate the longer-term potential for emitters, which could benefit from sharingCCS in the North Sea region. The following transport infrastructure, are shown on thescenario shows the continued development of map. Legend - graphic: © ElementEnergy 2010 2050 Sinks 30 year annual capacity (Mt/yr) <2.5 2.5-5 40 Mt/yr 5 Mt/yr 5-10 10-15 20 Mt/yr 15-20 15 Mt/yr 20-50 60 Mt/yr 80 Mt/yr 50+ 20 Mt/yr Source clusters 2030 20 Mt/yr Power sector source 43 Mt/yr Industrial Sources 20 Mt/yr 20 Mt/yr 35 Mt/yr 40 Mt/yr 10 Mt/yr 0 500 1000 KilometresFigure 10: CO2 transport in 2050 – Very High Scenario. (No restrictions on transport or storage) Page 65
  • 65. Chapter 4 - Results A 2050 vision of Carbon Capture Picture: © Bellona The overall quantity of CO2 stored in 2050 is be treated with even greater caution that 450 Mt/yr. Note that since a 30 year project that of 2030.25 The scenario predicts 75 Mt lifetime has been assumed in the modelling CO2/year are transported from Holland and exercise, this figure includes CO2 from Germany to the UK and Norwegian sectors of projects that began in 2030. The total CO2 the North Sea. The demand for storage in the stored by all projects over their lifetimes is over North Sea from countries outside the NSBTF 15 Gt. is not examined in this study, but would be significant in a very high CCS scenario It is clear from Figure 10 that many of the clusters developed by 2030 play an important in 2050 if storage opportunities elsewhere role in 2050. For example, total CO2 captured around Europe become restricted. from Yorkshire and Humber increases from Transport of even 100 Mt CO2/yr (3Gt over 40 to 80 Mt/yr, while capture in North West 30 years) can be accommodated within the Germany increases from 60 to 100 Mt/yr, sinks in the northern and central North Sea. building on infrastructure developed for the In the UK sector of the southern North Sea 2030 networks. In addition to existing clusters, it would be important to ensure that major new networks are developed in southern and sinks (gasfields) are left in a condition that eastern Germany, as well as in England. permits future CO2 storage. It also highlights The very high demand for CCS in 2050 can the benefits of infrastructure planning and only be sustained with substantial cross- capacity mapping, where large CO2 volumes border transport of CO2. Analysis of 2050 are expected. For example, if large flows are infrastructure requirements should obviously expected from continental Europe, perhapsPage 66 25 Potentially many oil and gas pipelines may have become available for re-use, and clustering or integrated transport infrastructure could significantly impact economics. 26 BERR (2007): UK Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Production and Reserves
  • 66. Chapter 4 - Resultsbecause of restrictions on onshore storage, with other users of the North Sea capacity in the southern North Seacould be used extensively and other capacity, • Cross-border transport of CO2such as aquifers in the Northern North Sea, is essential, with Germany and thecould play a key storage role by 2050. Netherlands storing CO2 in UK and Norwegian sinks.Finally, it is worth noting the scale of CCSin this scenario compared to existing • For large CO2 flows to be economic,hydrocarbon activity. For example, the annual combined with the need to connect marginal sources to meet the overall CCSstorage of CO2 in the UK is 150 Mt in 2050, demand, there will be an important role forequivalent to over ca. 25% of total 2007 trunk pipelines and shared infrastructure,UK emissions. For comparison the offshore rather than ad hoc deployment of point tooil industry in the UK peaked at 140 Mt of point networks.oil per year in 199926. Whilst the analysisshows such volumes of CO2 to be feasible, it • Many of the largest sinks in the southernnevertheless represents a very considerable North Sea are committed by 2030 inchallenge. the Very High Scenario. Therefore large gasfields and aquifers in the central andKey points for 2050: northern North Sea are required. • The total flow of CO2 by 2050 reaches • CCS plays a major role in meeting CO2 450 Mt/yr in the North Sea countries. This abatement targets. For the UK, annual would mean an infrastructure similar in size capture in 2050 is equivalent to 25% of to the North Sea oil industry at its peak, current emissions. and could imply substantial interactions Page 67
  • 67. Chapter 00 - Chapter title 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networks Additional drivers for CO2 networksPage 68 5 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 68. Chapter 5 - AdditionalChapter for CO2 networks drivers 00 - Chapter title5 Additional drivers for CO2 networks 705.1 CO2-enhanced oil recovery 705.2 Infrastructure re-use 725.2.1 Pipelines 725.2.2 Platforms and wells 735.3 Shipping 735.4 Source clustering 755.4.1 Timescales for major transport infrastructure development 771. Reference notes Page 692. Reference notes
  • 69. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networks 5 Additional drivers issue of source and sink clustering in more detail.28 for CO2 networks 5.1 CO2-enhanced The analysis in the previous chapter examined the effects of transport and oil recovery storage restrictions on the quantity and CO2-enhanced oil recovery is a mature distribution of CO2 flows throughout the technology in operation for many decades in North Sea countries. In the modelling, North America. The storage capacities and source-sink matches were driven by the incremental oil yields associated with CO2- relative economics of transport between enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the North sources and sinks on a point-to-point basis, Sea are highly uncertain but could provide optimising where there is potential competition substantial revenues to the oil industry and the between sources for the same sink and relevant Governments. Previous studies have between sinks for the same source27. This identified that CO2-EOR could lead to storage approach provides a convenient, simple and of 10 – 100 Mt CO2/year.9,29 transparent basis to help understand many of the transport and storage issues facing the • For the UK sector, the total incremental NSBTF. In practice, with capture representing oil in the sinks database is up to 2 billion the dominant cost, and storage representing barrels in 37 fields - the five largest UK the dominant uncertainty, transport economics EOR fields could have a combined oil yield may only influence, rather than control source- of up to 1.1 billion barrels. sink matching. • For the Norwegian sector, the total This chapter examines other factors which incremental oil is expected to be 1.8 billion may influence the development of CCS: CO2 barrels in 22 fields - the top five Norwegian Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), infrastructure EOR fields could have a combined re-use, and shipping. It also explores the incremental oil yield of 1.1 billion barrels. North Sea oil production facility Picture: iStockphoto © LandbySeaPage 70 27 Element Energy et al. CO2 pipeline infrastructure study for IEA GHG Manuscript submitted. 28 Competing uses of the subsurface, for example natural gas storage or geothermal energy, have been flagged by stakeholders as sources of uncertainty. 29 Tzimas et al. (2005) Enhanced oil recovery using carbon dioxide in the European Energy System EU JRC Report 21895 EN; Bellona (2005) CO2 for enhanced oil recovery on the Norwegian Shelf.
  • 70. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networksUp until 2006, there was some expectation Enhanced oil recovery is not the only potentialthat CO2-enhanced oil recovery would drive source of value for CO2. Already in theCCS in the North Sea. However EOR has Netherlands CO2 is piped from a refineryvery different requirements from CO2 storage. to greenhouses to support plant growth asThe costs of offshore CO2 recycling facilities part of the Rotterdam Climate Initiative. Theand additional CO2 injection wells make CO2- FP7-funded ECCO project aims to quantify inEOR substantially more expensive to carry further detail the economically valuable usesout in the North Sea than onshore in North for captured CO2.America where CO2-EOR is commerciallyviable. Studies have typically concluded that Developing a deepwater offshore fieldoil prices would need to be sustained in for CO2-enhanced oil recovery is a majorexcess of $70/bbl for CO2-EOR in the North engineering challenge, comparable in scale toSea to be cost competitive with CO2 storage original field development, with long lead timeswithout EOR9,16. The economics of enhanced and requiring a high degree of organisationoil recovery will depend strongly on site and risk taking in the context of uncertainty.specific issues and technology developments, Importantly, the window of opportunity can bebut also on the prevailing taxation and extremely tight, as demonstrated by the failureincentive systems for tertiary oil recovery, and of the BP/SSE DF1 enhanced oil recoverywhether supplied CO2 represents a cost or a project. CO2 competes with other optionsrevenue source. Industry stakeholders have for extended secondary recovery, for tertiaryhighlighted that CO2-EOR could be facilitated recovery, or for abandonment - these mayby favourable economic arrangements and better match licence owners’ priorities andincreased organisation30. capabilities.30 CO2 entry quality specification for networks may need to take potential use in EOR into account from the outset Page 71
  • 71. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networks Figure 11: Existing gas and oil pipelines in the North Sea Existing Gas and graphic: © ElementEnergy 2010 Oil pipelines Gas Oil 0 500 1000 Kilometres 5.2 Infrastructure However there will be requirements to modify operation and maintenance processes to re-use permit re-use with CO2. There is substantial theoretical capacity in 5.2.1 Pipelines existing pipelines. For example, 28 pipelines in the UK sector alone each have theoretical There is an extensive network of oil and gas capacities in the range 10-50 Mt CO2/ pipelines in and near the North Sea, which year if operated in dense phase. In addition presents a significant opportunity for re- there are many smaller in-field and inter- use. This includes trunklines between shore field pipelines which connect into trunklines and oil- and gas-fields, as well as inter-field offshore from various contributing fields, pipelines. Re-use of this infrastructure would which could also be considered for CO2 substantially reduce the capital costs (and transportation if the connected fields are planning risks) for CO2 transport. It would selected as storage sinks. However, it is also strongly influence the matching of not clear where capacities and availabilities sources and sinks. match source demand or sink capacity. Existing pipelines are mostly carbon steel, Although the economic benefits could be and so metallurgically suitable to carry CO2 high, the challenges to pipeline re-use are provided that any impurities, especially water, substantial: are maintained at a sufficiently low level. 1) Design pressure could be a limitation. Maximum allowable operating pressuresPage 72
  • 72. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networks are often reduced with age and may be proposing to re-use an onshore 36” 300 km particularly reduced for re-use with CO2.31 gas pipeline for gas-phase CO2 transport This effectively reduces transportation from Avonbridge (close to the Longannet capacity compared to a purpose-built power station) to St. Fergus gas terminal for new line (typically 200 – 300 bar). onward transport. 2) Remaining service life for CO2 5.2.2 Platforms and wells operation can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on data The potential to re-use offshore physical on internal corrosion, historic use and infrastructure33 such as existing platforms maintenance records. Even when there and wells requires site-specific analysis appear to be no technical barriers to re- of technical feasibility, economic benefits use, it is possible that owners/operators such as delayed decommissioning, may not wish to take risks of committing and contractual barriers. The window of pipelines that have been in long-term use opportunity to adapt existing above ground for hydrocarbon transport. infrastructure may be very narrow, as current North Sea legislation which typically 3) Timing will be a major limitation. requires infrastructure to be removed after The date at which pipelines become hydrocarbon production has ceased. available is inherently uncertain and is commercially sensitive information. Even The potential to improve storage-readiness if information can be shared, it may be through choices of equipment, materials, very difficult to match decommissioning and processes through low-cost actions timelines with those for CCS demand is poorly understood. An example is well and sink availability – mothballing may be abandonment procedure, where some necessary. approaches may be more compatible with future use for CO2 than others. Without clearGassco has identified that the 40” diameter guidance on choices, and further incentivesoffshore 600 km Europipe1 could support a to cover additional costs, it is unlikely that thetransport capacity of ca. 40 Mt CO2/year if market will deliver interventions that improvemade available for CO2 transport32. The exact storage readiness. The oil and gas industrycapacity will depend on pressures used. representatives on the NSBTF are wellThe pipeline runs from Draupner E platform placed to lead on this Dornum in Germany. The impact of thisavailability could be substantial – allowingsources in north Netherlands and north-westGermany to connect to central North Sea 5.3 Shippingsinks (especially Norwegian sinks) at muchlower costs than would be associated with Ship transport of oil and gas is routinenew pipelines. However the timing of pipeline worldwide and already plays an importantavailability is unclear – as the need for role in the North Sea. Four CO2 ships are incapacity depends on shippers’ requirements. commercial service on behalf of the food and drinks industry and other industrial users.The BP/SSE DF1 project at Peterhead hadproposed to re-use a pipeline connecting Shipping can be cost competitive withSt. Fergus gas terminal with the Miller pipelines for smaller volumes (such as thoseoilfield. Scottish Power and National Grid are corresponding to demonstration projects), or31 For example, the MAOP for National Grid’s feeder pipeline in Scotland is 75-85 barg, but re-use for CO2 is expected to occur only Page 73 at much lower pressures, where the CO2 will be in gaseous phase32 Sigve Apeland (2009) Personal Communication33 There may be benefits in re-using existing hydrocarbon reservoir models in accelerating the understanding of sinks. Generally these are proprietary data, however some arguments have been made that data could be made available at a reasonable cost and subject to indemnities once hydrocarbon production has ceased to accelerate understanding of CO2 storage potential. I. Phillips, Personal Communication
  • 73. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networks CO2 ships and hubs can potentially handle throughputs of up to 20 Mt CO2/year Picture: © Anthony Veder with longer distances (over 1,000 km). • The ability to handle variations in capacity over time is essential. Shipping could be a key enabler for specific CCS projects, and thereby facilitate the CO2 ships and hubs can potentially handle transition to large scale infrastructure, where: throughputs of up to 20 Mt CO2/year with high flexibility, relatively low capital costs, • No economic pipeline route can be and reduced risks from planning delays or identified, because distances or terrains of stranded assets. With lead times for CO2 are too challenging, or volumes or lifetimes ships expected to be two to three years, are too small. individual ships can be ordered to meet • The timescale and success of pipeline demand, which means capacity and utilisation consenting are difficult to predict or can be matched more carefully than for incompatible with demand. pipelines. Scaling down the ship capacity is unlikely to be a problem as ships could be • There is a high risk associated with the redeployed, elsewhere in the world for CO2 locations of sources or sinks, or the rate of transport or modified for use in the LPG trade. growth in capacity, which challenges the business case for high capital investment in pipelines that are sized for future capacity.Page 74
  • 74. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networksFigure 12: Schematic of options for transport network topologies. A) Point-to-point; B) Oversized Pipeline;C) Rights-of-way for pipelines; D) Shipping and shipping hub concept. Ovals represent discrete sources andtriangles represent sinksTransport network topologiesA) Point-to-point B) Shared pipelineC) Shared rights-of-way D) Shipping HubCO2 shipping is formally proposed for at least Figure 12: Schematic of options for transport network topologies. A) Point-to-point; B) ‘Oversized’ Pipeline; C)two European CCS demonstration projects, Rights-of-way for pipelines; D) Shipping and shipping hubwhich their proponents expect to commence concept.before 2020, namely: • The Fortum/TVO project intends to high and many sources within a cluster are transport CO2 from the Meri Pori coal-fired expected to invest in capture technology, power plant in Finland to the North Sea by there are opportunities to share transport and ship. storage infrastructure. Shared infrastructure • The use of a hub with CO2 transport by features strongly in the ‘Very High’ scenario, barge or ship is highlighted by Anthony where a smaller number of source clusters Veder and Vopak within the Rotterdam are responsible for the majority of capture Climate Initiative. activity. In the ‘Medium’ scenario, the CCS demand is much lower in 2030, suggesting5.4 Source clustering a larger role for simple point-to-point connections.The source-sink matching exercise above Transport and storage infrastructure foridentifies natural geographic clusters of CCS could develop in four dominant wayssources and sinks. Where CCS demand is schematized in Figure 12. Page 75
  • 75. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networks In Figure 12, Option A presents point- built as needed, but sharing an existing right to-point pipelines which are developed of way. Option D shows a shipping option, independently of each other. Option B whereby source and sink connect directly presents an integrated pipeline infrastructure, or via a hub. Table 12 compares the main whereby multiple sources (or sinks) are advantages and disadvantages of the four connected to a trunkline which may be topology options, emphasised as important oversized at the outset. Option C is an in discussions with stakeholders. intermediate option, where new pipelines are Table 12: Comparison of transport network topology options Topology Advantages Disadvantages A point-to-point • Low up-front capex • Average cost per tonne across all • Does not require estimation of networks is higher than with shared future demand infrastructure. • Does not require co-ordination • Multiple pipelines across different between multiple stakeholders routes means large planning • Reduces risk of low pipeline hurdles and disruption to those utilisation affected. • No flexibility to accommodate additional sources at low cost. • Could be higher capex in long term. B Shared pipeline • Low transport cost when operating • High initial cost. May require public at full capacity. sector funding initially. • Enables connection of marginal • Risk of low utilisation if demand is sources. Could attract new sources lower than forecast. e.g. industry to the region. • Requires common entry specifica- • Lower planning hurdles and tion for CO2. disruption since multiple sources • Complex business models. share one trunk pipeline. • Requires higher up-front confidence in storage availability C Shared rights • Robust and flexible • Transport costs are higher than for of way • Lower planning hurdles as new shared pipelines with same pipelines are built on throughput. shared rights of way. • Does not significantly reduce • Capacity matched to demand. costs for smaller, marginal sources. D Shipping • Lower upfront costs than pipelines. • Very high transport costs • Flexible in the event of sink failure compared to mature pipelines. CO2 can be routed to other • Large number of ships required to storage sites. meet high demand. • Suitable for projects where multiple, small sinks may be required, or where project lifetimes are small. • Capacity matched to demandPage 76
  • 76. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networks CASE STUDY The role of government Executive, despite opposition from all local intervention in major infrastructure councils through which the proposed line passes. decisions: The Beauly-Denny transmission line upgrade The experience of the Beauly-Denny upgrade has implications for the development of CCS A proposal to upgrade the Beauly-Denny transmission line in Scotland by installing infrastructure: 400 kV cables in place of the existing 132 kV • Planning is likely to be a major lines was put forward by the electricity grid hurdle for new pipelines, causing long operator in 2005. The proposal would provide delays and creating uncertainty for an additional 6 GW of capacity for new projects, mostly wind energy, and is critical in emitters considering investing in capture meeting the UK’s renewable energy targets. technology. The upgrade will require the construction • An approach based on shared trunk of new pylons, which will run parallel to the existing system, and the existing system will pipelines reduces the number of planning be decommissioned once construction is applications, compared to separate point completed. to point pipelines, decreasing the risks of rejection. The proposal has been subject to substantial public opposition, with over 18,000 • For strategically important pipelines, objections from individuals and lobby groups. intervention by national governments A public enquiry ended at the end of 2007, may be required to secure planning but it was not until January 2010 that the permission where there is strong local proposal was approved by the Scottish opposition.The relative merits of each topology depend 5.4.1 Timescales for majornot only on the locations, timings and transport infrastructurecapacities of sources and sinks which clearlydiffer between countries of the NSBTF, but development.also on cultures and the regulatory and The results in this study suggest that aplanning systems of each country. A recent plausible ‘very high’ uptake scenario willanalysis by NERA examined the regulatory require major integrated transport andframework for CCS transportation in the UK, infrastructure that could match the capacityand considered the rationale for government of the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure asintervention in CO2 pipeline investment, for early as 2030, substantially overtaking it byexample to fund over-sizing pipelines in 2050. The existing oil and gas infrastructureanticipation of future demand34. Their main in and around the North Sea developedconclusion was that given a strong enough over at least five decades, and has left theincentive for CO2 abatement, a market-driven region with excellent supply chain skills, andsystem will promote economically efficient an intimate knowledge of working safely andinvestment in the construction of CO2 legally in and around the North Sea and itspipelines.34 NERA Economic Consulting (2009) Developing a Regulatory Framework for CCS Transportation Infrastructure, prepared for DECC, Page 77 available as part of the DECC Consultation “A Framework for the development of clean coal
  • 77. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networks subsurface. These supply chains and know- Both public and private investment has how can be leveraged to support the growth been required for oil and gas infrastructure of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure in development, within the North Sea and 2020 to 2030, preparing industry if CCS is elsewhere, the exact mix reflecting national rolled out globally after 2030. and commercial priorities and timing. Regardless of the source of funding Immediate action is required to enable however, the development of the oil and gas these high levels of CCS infrastructure to be infrastructure could be justified by a history operational by 2030. This is because of: of clear demand, as well as surplus value (i) Long lead times associated with that ensures profitability of the overall supply major infrastructure development. chain. (ii) The ability to unlock significant Even with strategic drivers and robust investment in infrastructure at a economic benefits, cross-border reasonable cost will require substantial infrastructure has long lead times, as shown de-risking for all parties. by the Nord Stream Pipeline35. CASE STUDY The Nord Stream Pipeline • Design engineering commenced in 2007. The Nord Stream pipeline, which is to transport natural gas from Russia to Northern • Construction commenced in 2009. Germany across the Baltic Sea was • Gas delivery is not expected to conceived in 1997. commence before late 2011. • A feasibility study was commenced in 2001. • An environmental impact assessment was carried out in 2006. Timeline Concept Feasibility Environmental Design Construction impact engineering begins assessment Commissioning expected in 2011 1997 2001 2006 2007 2009Page 78 35 The Economist (2008) Russia’s pipeline hits a snag; available at
  • 78. Chapter 5 - Additional drivers for CO2 networks Picture: iStockphoto © Csaba Peterdi Page 79
  • 79. Chapter 00 - Chapter title 6 - Legal and regulatory issues Legal and regulatory issuesPage 80 6 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 80. Chapter 6 - Legal and 00 - Chapter title Chapter regulatory issues6 Legal and regulatory issues 836.1 General challenges 836.2 Cross-border challenges 856.2.1 Legal rights to transport CO2 across borders 856.2.2 Simplifying regulation of cross-border transport of captured CO2 866.2.3 Storage complex spanning national boundaries 876.2.4 Cross-border impacts from storage operations 886.2.5 Emissions accounting 896.2.6 Mechanisms to facilitate cross-border project development 896.2.7 Conclusions on cross-border issues 901. Reference notes Page 812. Reference notes
  • 81. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issues Picture: iStockphoto © William MaharPage 82
  • 82. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issues6 Legal and and proceed to implementation, there is an urgent priority to develop regulations regulatory issues for risk acceptance, site qualification, monitoring, verification, accounting, reporting, decommissioning, monitoring and legal6.1 General challenges liabilities that are acceptable to stakeholders. The jurisdictions of existing regulators forThe NSBTF countries are at very different CO2 transport and storage are unclear.stages in the development of legislative Therefore the speed and attitude of regulatorsarrangements to facilitate CCS. The UK and in developing fit-for-purpose uncomplicatedNorway have transposed elements of the regimes will influence the pace of deploymentrecent EU CCS Directive into national law, but and potentially industry structures (i.e.ratification in other jurisdictions is proceeding vertically integrated systems vs. independentmore slowly. Depending on how they are transport and/or storage businesses).implemented, elements of the Directive couldmake economic deployment of CCS less likely. The recent amendments to the London andTherefore it will be important to engage industry OSPAR Conventions should permit transportand where possible implement coherently of ‘overwhelmingly pure’ CO2 for disposalin the North Sea region. In any case, further into geological formations below the is necessary in all countries to permit the However both amendments require two-development of CO2 storage and eventual thirds of signatories to ratify the amendment.handover of stores to national governments. Until this occurs, legality of injecting CO2Since energy companies and supply chains under the North Sea from new purpose-builtare predominantly international businesses, platforms will theoretically remain open tostakeholders confirmed that a harmonised challenge.regulatory landscape would be stronglypreferred. Any divergence in policies could If CCS is to play its part in the transition to adelay deployment of the technology, and low carbon economy, knowledge and supportcontribute to increased costs. from the oil and gas sector will be critical.However the economic potential for CCS, Access to existing infrastructure andworldwide but particularly across Europe, reservoirs could expedite development, butis heterogeneous; there is wide variation would need to be available on reasonablein storage volumes, source clustering, terms. However, there is difficulty in estimatingand commercial organisations who cessation dates of hydrocarbon production.would be involved in delivery. This may While there are needs to respect the basismake it challenging to obtain the required on which existing contractual commitmentsharmonisation of regulations at UN or EU levels. have been entered into, and also a need toGiven their common interests, the governments preserve the potential for future oil and gasof the NSBTF could coordinate the licensing production, there is a risk that hypersensitivityregimes and regulatory requirements, providing to these issues could reduce options for lowleadership for other regions. cost storage, and thereby the development ofIf utilities/developers are to become a large CCS industry.comfortable with the risk profile of projects, Page 83
  • 83. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issues Figure 13: Overview of the DNV co-ordinated Joint Industry Projects (JIP) to develop CCS guidelines. (Image courtesy DNV) Guidelines and recommended practices for the whole CCS value chain Safe reliable and cost- efficient JIP JIP JIP JIP CCS CO2CAPTURE CO2PIPETRANS CO2WELLS CO2QUALSTORE Guideline 2008 Guideline 2009 Proposed Guideline Recommended Recommended JIP 2009, start- finalised and practice 2010 practice 2010 up March 2010 public medio Febuary 2010, DNV Recommended practice 2010 Proposed new CO2PIPETRANS phase 2, start-up January 2010 To accelerate the deployment of CCS in a through a risk-based verification and safe and sustainable way, there is a need for qualification process. authoritative and readily available guidelines that contribute to: • Use of concurrent best engineering practice, best available technology (BAT) • Proper selection and qualification of and proper management of risks and well-suited storage sites according to uncertainties throughout the life of a CCS recognised procedures. project. • Efficient and harmonised implementation Furthermore, to build confidence in CCS as a of legal and regulatory frameworks for CCS. trustworthy option to mitigate global warming, it • Predictable conditions for operators, is important that CCS projects are implemented regulators and other stakeholders. in a clear and transparent way, with benefits and risks balanced and well communicated. • A swift transition from R&D and demonstration scale projects to large scale It is unlikely that there will be substantive CCS by acceptance for a learning-by-doing additional barriers to purely commercial CO2- approach where data is gathered during EOR within or between the NSBTF countries operation to validate storage performance, – these will likely operate under existing and where uncertainties are controlled frameworks.Page 84
  • 84. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issues6.2 Cross-border or similar organisation, for example by the following: challenges • Where CO2 transport across borders may be challenged under internationalWe have identified five main classes of cross- treaties which restrict the transport ofborder issue: wastes or hazards across borders, these should be amended to explicitly enable CO2 1) CO2 is transported from a source in transport and storage. country A to a storage site in country B so that the transport (pipeline or ship) crosses • Liabilities for fugitive CO2 emissions from a boundary. This could include when a cross-border CCS networks should be network of sources and sinks includes one limited and clear. or more sources, or one or more sinks, from different countries. Transport could use • Liabilities in respect of storage complexes new or existing pipelines. that span national borders should be limited and clear either on a case by case basis or 2) Where CO2 injection occurs in one state generally. but there are potential impacts from planned or unplanned CO2 migration or pressure • In general, where there is a need to changes in a neighbouring state. satisfy at least two sets of regulators – adding expense, uncertainty and 3) Where the storage unit itself spans one costs – such regulators should commit or more national boundaries. to being consistent in their approaches, requirements and timelines. Developers 4) Transport (by ship36 or pipeline) would need to consider the regulatory proceeds from a source in country A to a and permitting regimes for pipeline sink in country B proceeds via country C, construction and routing, for authorising where there may or may not be planned CO2 transportation and/or storage, and temporary storage in country C. The EU the relevant environmental and health and storage directive requires member states to safety regimes. facilitate such transport where possible. • Incentives, such as emissions 5) As above but where there is a value accounting systems or national policies, for CO2, e.g. where enhanced oil recovery should consider and support cross-border plays an important role – in general this projects. would fall under existing legislation e.g. for petroleum production. 6.2.1 Legal rights to transportObviously there must be appropriate regimes CO2 across bordersfor capture, transport and storage in the CO2 used solely for enhanced oil recoverycountries where these occur to provide legal would be treated as a commodity, and not acertainty. Cross-border projects face additional waste product. However, the classification ofpotential legal and regulatory challenges, ‘captured CO2’ in national or regional legislationabove and beyond the requirements to satisfy (e.g. if it becomes classed as a waste withnational legal and regulatory requirements. some hazardous, dangerous properties), willThese issues could be mitigated by the NSBTF subsequently determine which international36 International maritime law will apply to cross-border ship transport. A. Soroko, Personal Communication Page 85
  • 85. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issues treaties might apply. Even if CO2 is not A Contracting Party entering into such an considered hazardous, legal restrictions will agreement or arrangement shall notify it to apply if: the Organisation. The amendment requires ratification. • impurities in the CO2 stream are considered hazardous by their presence, 6.2.2 Simplifying regulation of or are present in significantly high levels in cross-border transport of terms of total mass flow37, or captured CO2 • supercritical CO2 were to be considered a dangerous substance requiring stricter Having to comply with two or more regimes regulation that other condensed gases. both in pre-project development and on an ongoing basis will inevitably increase costs and In cases of trans-boundary transport of gives rise to the risk of inconsistencies between CO2, trans-boundary storage sites or, trans- those regimes. This may impact more marginal boundary storage complexes, the EU’s CCS projects in particular. Costs and inconsistencies directive requires the competent authorities could be reduced if the authorities in the of the Member States to meet jointly the respective states consulted with each other requirements of this Directive and of other and tried to ensure that, so far as possible, relevant Community legislation. Where more their regimes were similar and aligned. The than one Member State covers the CO2 transporter will need authorisations under each network or the storage site, the Member regulatory regime. States concerned must consult with a view A good example of how these issues have to ensuring that the provisions of the Directive been addressed as between UK and Norway are applied consistently. These two provisions in the oil and gas context can be found in require states to cooperate in respect of cross- the UK/Norway framework agreement of jurisdictional matters. The CCS Directive does 2005 available at https://www.og.decc. not provide for situations where a site has been receiving CO2 from more than one Member (pertinent extracts are included below). Prior State. This could constitute a barrier which to the 2005 Framework, individual treaties for could be addressed at EU or North Sea Basin cross-border pipelines and reservoirs were Task Force level. negotiated, which in some cases was difficult In October 2009, Article 6 of the 1996 London and took several years. This is still the case for Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention electricity interconnectors. Much more rapid of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes development of cross-border reservoir projects and Other Matter was amended. The 2009 has been observed since the Framework has amendment allows the export of carbon dioxide been implemented39. Importantly these include streams for disposal in secure geological marginal projects that otherwise would not have stores, provided that an agreement has been been developed. entered into by the countries concerned. The UK-Norway agreement addresses Such an agreement must include confirmation principles with respect to co-ordination and allocation of permitting responsibilities including: between the exporting and receiving countries, consistent with the provisions of this Protocol 1) Scope and other applicable international law; and in 2) Jurisdiction the case of export to non-Contracting Parties.Page 86 37 The mass flow of impurities may need to be below a threshold value to avoid triggering these concerns. 38 Element Energy et al., on behalf of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (Manuscript in Preparation). These treaties are supplemented with multilateral or bilateral treaties.
  • 86. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issues 3) Definitions 6.2.3 Storage complex spanning 4) Health, Safety and Environmental national boundaries Standards, Physical Access and Inspection Where a storage unit or complex spans a 5) Metering and Inspection national boundary (median line), agreement will 6) Taxation be necessary on the terms for its exploitation. 7) Exchange of information (including a This may involve the use of expert opinions prohibition on rules which would prevent to apportion opportunities and impacts for necessary information flowing from one interested parties. Realistically, this could be state to another and so on) a longer term issue for the NSBTF (i.e. well 8) Approval procedures beyond 2020), as enthusiasm for the use of trans-boundary storage units would most likely 9) Expert procedures for apportioning reserves across boundaries and resolving develop on the back of successful operation of disputes storage units within a single country. 10) Consultation and exchange of The principles for how this is dealt with for information trans-boundary hydrocarbon reservoirs in the 11) Authorisations UK and Norway 2005 Framework Agreement are shown in the box below. The agreement 12) Construction and operation of cross- boundary pipelines also covers terms for infrastructure on one side of the median line to access a reservoir on the 13) Decommissioning other side of the median line. 14) Access terms and conditions 15) Emergency situations 16) Entry and exit points and tariffs 17) Dispute settlement mechanisms 18) Use of infrastructure across the delimitation line 19) Selection of additional transport capacityInsight from other sectors is also useful,for example the recent commitment to co-operation to develop an offshore electricity gridamongst North Sea countries40.39 P. Kershaw, DECC (2009) Personal Communication Page 8740 See for example,, which is itself based on an earlier agreement available at
  • 87. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issues CASE STUDY UK Norway Ministerial Statement • the approval of the development plan and any amendments to the plan; on a new framework agreement for transboundary hydrocarbon • the establishment of the total amount reservoirs of reserves, the apportionment of the reserves and the procedures for JOINT EXPLOITATION OF carrying out and applying the outcome of TRANSBOUNDARY (MEDIAN LINE FIELD) redeterminations; RESERVOIRS AS A UNIT • the appointment of a unit operator and Where the two Governments and their any change of operator; respective licensees agree that a petroleum reservoir extends across the delimitation line • the use of infrastructure for third party and is to be exploited, both Governments development; and shall agree on: • the timing of the cessation of • the licensees’ agreement; production from the reservoir. 6.2.4 Cross-border impacts from The primary requirement would be for the storage operations treatment in the country where the damage occurs to be the same as the treatment that More complex legally and politically, is where would arise if the injection had also occurred in storage could have potential impacts in an that country so that there is no discrimination adjacent state due to fluid migration and between domestic and foreign reservoirs or pressure increases that in principle could storage complexes. If there is any protection result in damage to life, health, physical under local law for the injection company in this infrastructure, or compromise the use of oil situation it would extend to injections outside and gas reservoirs (including those yet to be the jurisdiction. The secondary requirement discovered). would be that for major risks, treatment on both sides of the border should ideally be the same Although no cross-border impacts are currently to encourage optimal development of networks foreseen from existing CO2 injection in the not driven by legal concerns. Utsira Formation, or planned CO2 storage projects within the NSBTF countries, early Theoretical damage to life, health property agreement on how to manage impacts would is only likely to arise if there is an explosive reduce uncertainties of possible future legal or sudden large scale leakage. Subject to challenges. actuarial evidence being available, this may be insurable and could be dealt with in the same A legal framework could improve investor and way as other health and safety risks. government confidence that these issues could be dealt with in an appropriate manner, In the event of compromised oil and gas reducing the likelihood of need for recourse to production, in areas already licensed, licensees broader agreements that do not consider CCS could claim loss. For those areas not yet specifically41. Therefore this study recommends licensed, the state would presumably be that the NSBTF examine how to deal with the loser. Therefore states might need to be this issue. prepared to agree to indemnify each otherPage 88 41 For example, the Espoo United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context
  • 88. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issuesagainst this latter type of damage (effectively Treaty or a Framework Agreement.sign a waiver), although there are no obviousprecedents for this, so could be challenging to There are several examples where MOUs haveagree. been used by states wishing to cooperate on energy matters. Two recent examples in6.2.5 Emissions accounting Europe are the MOUs signed in respect of the Single Electricity Market in Northern IrelandCO2 emission accounting systems (e.g. and Ireland (“SEM”) and Market Couplingfor targets, taxes, penalties, credits or ETS and Security of Supply in Central Westernallowances) have an influence on (i) priorities Europe. The MOUs are fairly short, high-levelfor government activities and (ii) where value is documents that provide a map to be followedrecouped within the CCS chain, and thereby by signatories in achieving the desired aims. Anindustry priorities. Two regimes are particularly MOU records international “commitments”, butnoteworthy here – the EU Emissions Trading in a form and with wording which expressesScheme and the UN Framework Convention an intention that it is not to be legally binding.on Climate Change. An MOU can be used where it is considered preferable to avoid the formalities of a treaty, forThe EU has recently proposed draft guidelines example, where there are detailed provisionson the treatment of emissions accounting for that change frequently or the matters dealt withCCS, which impose monitoring obligations on are essentially of a technical or administrativeoperators, and liability to purchase allowances character. The formalities which surround(emission rights) equal to any emission treaty-making do not apply to a MOU andrecorded. The proposed draft guidelines do therefore it may be a faster process:not provide guidance on how any unintentionalemissions from pipelines might be allocated • In December 2006, the UK and Irelandin National Greenhouse Gas Inventories in signed a MOU arranging the establishmentcases where the pipeline crosses national and operation of a single wholesaleboundaries, and the precise location of the electricity market (SEM) in Northern Irelandfugitive release is uncertain. and Ireland. The MOU set out the goals of the governments and provided the broad6.2.6 Mechanisms to facilitate framework within which both would enact cross-border project legislation to enable the implementation of development the SEM.With respect to the development of CCS in the • In June 2007, the governments ofNorth Sea, stakeholders will need to consider Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourghow they foresee the development of the and the Netherlands signed a MOU onindustry and the extent of cooperation between market coupling and security of supply inNorth Sea countries. The regulatory framework Central Western Europe to promote a moreput into place will differ according to the option efficiently functioning cross-border electricitythat is chosen. market in the five countries and as a step towards further European integration. TheThere are a number of ways in which MOU set out the objective of the analysis,parties interested in co-operating in the the design and implementation of thedevelopment of CCS in the North Sea can market coupling between the five countries,formalize arrangements including by way of as well as the objectives to be achieved ina Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a security of electricity supply. Page 89
  • 89. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issues The US Interstate Oil and Gas Compact • Potential impacts from CO2 storage Commission Task Force on Carbon Capture project developed in one country on a and Geological Storage also provides a second country. valuable example of cross-border co-operation42. • The management of liabilities for CO2 transported from one country and stored in 6.2.7 Conclusions on cross- a second country. border issues • The management of CO2 storage complexes that span national borders, for This section has identified diverse barriers to example exploration, leasing and licensing cross-border transport, cross-border storage, of pore spaces, short and long-term and impacts from CO2 stored in one country monitoring and liabilities. on a second country. • Co-ordination of the permitting, The experience from the development of oil construction, operation, decommissioning and gas reservoirs, pipelines and electricity and liability issues for physical CCS interconnects across national boundaries infrastructure such as pipelines and injection provides valuable lessons for how cross-border facilities that span borders. transport and cross-border storage should be managed. This knowledge should be Despite experience with several project-specific leveraged for CO2 storage projects. transboundary agreements, the UK Norway framework agreement for transboundary The technical analysis indicates significant hydrocarbon reservoirs and infrastructure took potential for cross-border CCS issues to three years to agree. The development of increase in importance for the countries of the CO2 storage agreements may be more time North Sea Basin Task Force in the period up to consuming. Therefore a commitment by the and beyond 2020. As the pre-eminent forum North Sea Basin Task Force to start to address for deliberating on CO2 transport and storage these issues through working groups or studies issues in the North Sea, the North Sea Basin in the period 2012 to 2015 will increase Task Force is in a leading position to tackle, if the likelihood that legal clarity is available to necessary: CCS developers in advance of any major infrastructure decisions in the late 2010s or early 2020s if required.Page 90 42
  • 90. Chapter 6 - Legal and regulatory issuesFigure 14:Cross-border issues COUNTRY (A) Cross-border pipeline CO2 MEDIAN LINE COUNTRY (B) ONSHORE Cross-border injection infrastructure 1 CO2 4 CO2 ONSHORE CO2 CO2 CO2 3 fo 2 010 o est ulw .pa w ww CO2 2 phic :© gra Cross-border sink MEDIAN LINE 1. Cross-border 2. Cross-border sink 3. Cross-border 4. Cross-border pipeline impacts injection infrastructureISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES• Long term liability impact • CO2 migration • Possible compromise of • Infrastructure management• Pipeline management • Pressure changes nearby hydrocarbon • Allocation rights reservoir Page 91
  • 91. Chapter 00 - Chapter title Sea’ Vision 7 - A ‘One North A ‘One North Sea’ VisionPage 92 7 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 92. Chapter 7 -Chapter NorthChapter title A ‘One 00 - Sea’ Vision7 A ‘One North Sea’ Vision 941. Reference notes Page 932. Reference notes
  • 93. Chapter 7 - A ‘One North Sea’ Vision 7 A ‘One North commercial activity within NSBTF member states, to act as a supplier of CCS Sea’ Vision technologies and expertise, which, once proven, can be exported worldwide. The main conclusions from the technical We propose the following vision for CCS analysis and stakeholder consultation in this within the North Sea region: report are: Near term (period to 2020) • Subject to proving its technical and commercial viability in the period up to A coordinated set of demonstration and pre- 2020, CCS will be an essential technology commercial projects proving key elements for significant carbon abatement in the of the technology, thereby establishing the NSBTF countries and globally by 2030. North Sea countries as world leaders of CCS technology development. • Although there are many uncertainties, the growth of CCS deployment amongst • There will be efforts by the governments the North Sea countries could be and stakeholders of the NSBTF, to significant, particularly in the period 2020 – coordinate the development of appropriate 2030. CCS incentives at European and global level. • This high level of deployment amongst • Stakeholders within the North Sea region NSBTF countries is sustained by the will be seen as vital in proving the technical combination of: and economic potential of CCS. o Abundant and diverse CO2 storage • A much more accurate picture of sites; over half the CO2 storage in the true storage capacity in the North Europe is within the borders of the four Sea region will have been developed, NSBTF member countries. increasing confidence for policymakers and o Highly clustered CO2 sources, which commercial stakeholders alike. will facilitate the development of efficient • The demonstration projects within North transport networks. Sea member countries will be coordinated • There is significant research, to ensure the necessary learning is development and demonstration within the achieved efficiently. This extends to sharing NSBTF countries, with considerable activity best practice on capture technologies, through all levels of the supply chain from transport routing, and sink mapping and capture, transport and storage. maturation techniques. We conclude that the member states and • During this time, the NSBTF members commercial partners of the NSBTF are in a will show leadership on the exploitation natural leadership position on CCS, due to: of storage sites, both hydrocarbon fields and aquifers, including sharing data and • Abundant sink capacity and source expanding mapping, characterisation, clustering, reducing costs for CCS injection and monitoring activities. deployment, • Leadership will also be shown on the • The opportunity to capitalise on deployment and safe operation of sub-seaPage 94
  • 94. Chapter 7 - A ‘One North Sea’ Vision CO2 transport and storage facilities. Long term (2030 to 2050) • Appropriate legislation will be in place to Assuming successful CCS deployment and facilitate the large scale commercial storage subject to progress with alternative energy of CO2 under the North Sea, and its transfer technologies and prevailing global CO2 between member states. mitigation requirements.Mid-term (period from 2020 to 2030) • A greater number of CO2 sources will be captured. Many projects will be integratedAssuming successful CCS demonstration to form source clusters, making use ofand subject to need, there will be a ramping shared CO2 trunk lines and sinks.up of commercial CCS deployment so that by2030 the technology is making a significant • A well-established transport and storagecontribution to CO2 abatement within Europe. infrastructure will allow the region to attract and retain high emitting and energy- • Incentives for CCS will be sufficient and intensive industries, allowing them to long-term so as to encourage a growing operate cost-effectively within a low carbon number of large scale commercial projects. economy. • The legislation developed in the near • Some North Sea countries will develop term, will support an increasing volume of CCS capacity beyond their own needs, cross-border flows. This mutual support and become a net exporter of low carbon will help to reduce risk and costs amongst electricity to other European nations. North Sea member states. Whilst the above vision is considered • By the end of this period, the CCS flow technically realistic, there are diverse in the North Sea and the industry required obstacles to delivering CCS deployment to develop it, is approaching the size of the at a scale consistent with the ‘Very High’ oil and gas industry in the North Sea. scenario. The next chapters summarise the • The North Sea countries will be key barriers and identify possible actions to exploiting the knowledge gained through deliver the vision. this and the previous period by exporting See One North Sea graphic, technologies and services to a worldwide next page Figure 15 market. Page 95
  • 95. Chapter 7 - A ‘One North Sea’ Vision Figure 15: A ‘One North Sea’ vision Depleted hydrocarbon field or Decarbonised CO2 pipeline aquifer Enhanced CO2 pipeline electricity for oil recovery homes & businesses NATIONAL BOUNDARY CO2 ships CO2 Electric Central & vehicles northern North Sea aquifers Cross-border pipelines CO2 Reused natural gas pipeline Export decarbonised Onshore CO2 power storage CO2 1-3 o2 010 CO2 ships km w.p a ulw est on .inf © ww Depleted ph ic: gra gas field CO2 NATIONAL BOUNDARY Large aquiferPage 96
  • 96. Chapter 7 - A ‘One North Sea’ Vision Page 97
  • 97. Chapter 8 - - Chapter title 00 Barriers to achieving the vision Barriers to achieving the visionPage 98 8 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 98. Chapter 8 - Barriers to achieving the vision Chapter 00 - Chapter title8 Barriers to achieving the vision 1008.1 Global barriers to CCS deployment 1008.2 Barriers to CCS deployment in and around the North Sea region 1008.3 Barriers to cross-border projects in and around the North Sea 1011. Reference notes Page 992. Reference notes
  • 99. Chapter 8 - Barriers to achieving the vision 8 Barriers to achiev- generally and CO2 storage in particular, hampers investment. ing the vision 8.2 Barriers to CCS Stakeholders consulted during the preparation of this report suggested that the large scale deployment for deployment of CCS infrastructure by 2030, with substantial contribution from cross-border the North Sea projects is technically feasible. However the stakeholder and literature review, and the region technical, legal and regulatory analysis within this study identified numerous barriers to CCS In addition to the barriers above, there are deployment. specific issues affecting CCS in the North Sea region. In the absence of concerted efforts by North Sea Governments, industry and wider 8.1 Global barriers to stakeholders to develop CCS technologies, CCS deployment infrastructure, policies and regulations CCS activity is likely to limited to a handful of medium-scale demonstration projects. In addition to weak incentives generally for CO2 reduction, systemic barriers to 1. Insufficient financial or regulatory incentives commercial CCS deployment worldwide for CO2 capture remain the biggest barriers identified in the stakeholder and literature to widespread CCS deployment in Europe. review for this study include: The locations and amount of demand in 2030 are highly sensitive to policy and market 1. The eventual capacities, locations and influences. timings for CCS deployment are highly uncertain. This makes planning for CCS 2. If there are sufficient incentives to support difficult for both governments and industry. a very high CCS demand, our modelling suggests that restrictions in transport and 2. There has been limited operational storage availability can dramatically change experience in large scale CO2 injection – the level and distribution of CO2 emissions consequently there are no well calibrated abatement through CCS activity within the or fully accepted criteria for CO2 storage North Sea region. capacity and suitability determination. 3. Whilst overall theoretical capacity 3. The technical and economic viability estimates are high, storage opportunities of CCS at large scale remains to be for CO2 are highly site-specific. Information demonstrated. on the locations, capacities, suitability 4. Weak economic or regulatory and availability of individual sinks are too incentives for power or industrial sources limited to develop Europe-wide policies and to justify the higher capital and operating investments that would result in significant costs associated with CCS operation. CCS activity. 5. Uncertainty over the development of 4. A vicious circle comprising uncertainty legal and regulatory frameworks for CCS over the demand for CCS, investment inPage 100
  • 100. Chapter 8 - Barriers to achieving the vision integrated infrastructure, sink suitability and for accepting long-term CO2 liabilities from availability, technology development and cross-border projects. public policy across Europe creates a real risk that investments in CCS infrastructure will not 2. Governments will need to agree terms proceed quickly enough to enable a large- for the permitting, construction, operation scale roll-out of CCS in the period 2020 to and decommissioning of any physical 2030. infrastructure that crosses the national boundaries. 5. There is limited legal and regulatory clarity for CO2 storage development, creating 3. Governments will need to agree how to challenging business models for storage. develop storage units which cross national boundaries directly. 6. The modelling work suggests that onshore storage and aquifers play a large role in 4. Governments will need to agree how CO2 storage in very high uptake scenarios, to manage any potential impacts from particularly in Germany. If domestic storage CO2 storage projects across national was not viable, cross-border storage could boundaries. be accessed if suitable cross-border 5. CCS project developers will need transport infrastructure was in place. robust signals for capture demand and storage availability and regulation,8.3 Barriers to cross- and information on existing or future infrastructure plans in different countries. border projects in 6. CCS project developers will need to and around the satisfy legal and regulatory requirements from two or more sets of regulators, North Sea potentially adding risks, raising costs and/ or introducing delays.The technical analysis identifies that cross-border flows of CO2 between countriesrepresented on the North Sea Basin TaskForce are unlikely to be significant until after2020. However the stakeholder reviewidentified that cross-border projects involvingcountries not currently represented on theTask Force may be developed. Tacklingcross-border issues early could increasethe potential for favourable CCS policies incountries around the North Sea and in Europegenerally, promote investor confidence andchoice, and provide a blueprint for otherregions in managing cross-border CO2 flows. Barriers to cross-The legal analysis identifies the following border projects Picture: iStockphotochallenges: © Erna Vader 1. Governments will need to agree terms Page 101
  • 101. Chapter 9 - - Chapter title vision 00 Delivering the Delivering the visionPage 102 9 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 102. Chapter 9 - Delivering the vision Chapter 00 - Chapter title9 Delivering the vision 1049.1 Near-term actions at global level 1049.2 Near-term actions at European level 1059.3 Actions for the NSBTF (or other similar consortia) 1059.4 Actions for governments of the NSBTF to facilitate cross-border CO2 flows 1061. Reference notes Page 1032. Reference notes
  • 103. Chapter 9 - Delivering the vision 9 Delivering the vision 9.1 Near-term actions at global level Activities to remove the barriers outlined above and deliver the vision need to occur at a number of levels, and involve diverse Substantially more progress is required organisations. It is neither necessary nor worldwide in: appropriate for the responsibility for all of • Gathering operational experience with these activities to formally lie as actions for the both CO2 capture and storage NSBTF itself. Indeed members of the NSBTF already individually contribute to a number of • Developing lower cost ‘next generation’ other CCS related forums. capture technologies Action at global level is necessary, because • Developing better guidelines on challenging caps on CO2 emissions can only determining the capacity and suitability of be achieved through global agreements, potential storage sites. because CCS will draw on existing supply chains that operate and innovate globally, and • Delivering large scale and safe CCS because stimulating a global market for CCS demonstration projects in a timely manner. will create opportunities for CCS businesses • Sharing knowledge from demonstrations that develop in Europe. In the short term one between governments, industry and the half of the proposals for CCS demonstrations public. worldwide are outside of Europe, meaning that it will be important to tap into experience • Supporting measures that could reduce gained worldwide. the costs of capture, transport and storage. The analysis within this report demonstrates that organisation and engagement of the • Committing to strengthening economic members of the NSBTF at European level is and regulatory incentives for CCS. also essential, because it is primarily through influencing EU energy and climate policy • Providing as much clarity as possible on that the largest and most sustainable CCS long-term policies and initiatives. deployment scenarios may develop. • Engaging with the public and NGOs to With access to large amounts of offshore CO2 gain support for CCS. storage, North Sea countries benefit strongly • Removing legal obstacles to cross- from economic opportunities connected to border CO2 transport or storage. CCS, and may have a compelling incentive to be early adopters of CCS technology, and Existing institutions such as the Carbon therefore display leadership on issues such Sequestration Leadership Forum, the as transport and storage, including managing International Energy Agency, the Global CCS CO2 flows across borders. This is consistent Institute, and United Nations are well placed with the stakeholder analysis which identified to tackle these issues. that proposals for CCS projects in North Sea countries are developing well.Page 104
  • 104. Chapter 9 - Delivering the vision9.2 Near-term actions virtuous circle for policy development, sink maturation, transport infrastructure at European level development, and capture investment. • Continuing to fund research,This report recommends that the development and demonstration activitiesgovernments of the North Sea Basin Task that may reduce the costs of CCS.Force work together, and with the European • Agreeing to collectively influenceUnion, to deliver a supportive policy European policy development related toenvironment, for example by: CCS. • Introducing measures that promote • Reducing the risk of projects being CCS deployment in Europe beyond a first blocked or unnecessarily delayed through wave of CCS demonstration, for example responsible public engagement on issues capture readiness and incentives for around climate, energy, economics and capture, transport and storage. CCS. • Facilitating implementation of the EU • Developing common guidelines for CO2 CCS Directive and developing supportive transport and storage to provide clarity and structures for exploration, licensing and simplicity for participants. leasing arrangements for storage. • Substantially improving the quality, consistency and availability of information 9.3 Actions for the on potential geological storage locations under the North Sea and across Europe. NSBTF (or other Ideally this should identify potential conflicts of interest and other economic issues. similar consortia) This would reduce risks and create a Recommendation 1Figure 16: Virtuous circle of CCS policy development andinvestment in capture, transport and storage infrastructure. Recognising the limitations of existing data on sink capacity, availability, and suitability, and long lead times for storage assessment 2. Policy 3. Sink and validation, the NSBTF (or others) should, development maturation by 2012, consider a shared CO2 storage assessment to improve the consistency, quality and credibility of North Sea storage capacity estimation, mapping, suitability CCS POLICY assessment, and/or validation. DEVELOP- 1. Storage MENT 4. Develop transport Recommendation 2 evaluation infrastructure Recognising the potential for information to reduce uncertainties and optimise the development of CO2 transport and storage 5. Capture infrastructure, the NSBTF (or others) should investment continue to assess and publish biennial long- Page 105
  • 105. Chapter 9 - Delivering the vision range reviews of opportunities and challenges co-operation in the development of legislation, for CCS-related activity in and around the and in sharing information where appropriate, North Sea region. to support CCS, in their own countries, at European level and in global forums. The next review should include: i. Updated assessments of the economic 9.4 Actions for potentials, timing, organisation and implementation of capture, transport, Governments to storage, enhanced oil recovery, and infrastructure re-use. facilitate cross- ii. Updates on relevant national and border CO2 flows European policies and guidelines, and comparison of technical, legal, regulatory The analysis in this report identifies that or commercial barriers for CCS in the cross-border CO2 transport and storage could North Sea region with other regions of the play a useful role by 2030. The governments world. of NSBTF member states (or other similar iii. Identification of low cost near term grouping) are best placed to address measures that could substantially reduce these cross-border issues directly, and we the long-term costs of CCS, for instance recommend the following actions: data sharing, future-proofing specific sites or infrastructure, or increased organisation. Recommendation 5 Before 2014 the NSBTF Government iv. Case Studies providing as much detail Members should review progress on cross- as possible on site-specific opportunities border issues and expected demand, and if and challenges for capture, transport and necessary publish a formal statement of intent storage. to agree terms where required in respect of Recommendation 3 the management of cross-border flows or potential impacts, infrastructure and storage Recognising that depleted hydrocarbon complexes. reservoirs under the North Sea are promising early storage sites, in the period 2010 – Whilst the exact timing and focus will depend 2015 the NSBTF (or others) should share on the outcome of this review and expected experience and thereby develop guidelines lead times, Governments should consider on how stewardship should be transferred developing frameworks in the period 2015 – between hydrocarbon extraction, Government 2020 for: and CO2 storage. • The management of potential impacts of CO2 storage projects developed in one Recommendation 4 country on a second country. Recognising that influencing policy • The management of liabilities for CO2 development and sharing information at global transported from one country and stored in and particularly European levels will be critical a second country. in developing CCS around the North Sea, the governments and members of the NSBTF (or • The management of CO2 storage others) must continue to show leadership and complexes that span national borders, forPage 106
  • 106. Chapter 9 - Delivering the vision example exploration, leasing and licensing of pore spaces, short and long-term monitoring and liabilities. • The permitting, construction, operation, decommissioning and liability issues for physical CCS infrastructure such as pipelines and injection facilities that span borders.Figure 17: Timeline reflecting the focus of CCS stakeholders in the North Sea region (assumes ‘Very High’ scenario).Vision Coordinated demonstration Ramp up of infrastructure Contribute significantly to EU CO2 abatement Ensure readiness to deploy Policy clarity Capacity exceeds North Sea oil Export expertise & decarbonised power Prove the technical & Ensure many types of Connect many sourcesTechnology economic potential of CCS sources can be captured & sinks Reduce costsdevelopers Improve storage assessments Mature sinksTransport & Facilitate long-term capacity growthstorage Deliver demonstration Develop large scale infrastructureinfrastructure Validate stores Projects share infrastructure Demonstration Cross-border legislation in placePolicy Enabling EU & domestic Long-term incentives Capture from existing powerfocus legislation Long-term regulatory frameworks sources & industry CCS readiness 2010 2015 2020 2030 Page 107
  • 107. Chapter 10 - Acknowledgements 00 Chapter title AcknowledgementsPage 108 10 1. Reference notes 2. Reference notes
  • 108. ChapterChapter 00 - Chapter title 10 - Acknowledgements10 Acknowledgements 1101. Reference notes Page 1092. Reference notes
  • 109. Chapter 10 - Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The project team would like to thank the following expert stakeholders who provided valuable input into the preparation of this report. Funding is provided by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Strategic Programme and the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. Air Products E.On Powerfuel Amec Gassco Progressive Energy/COOTS Anthony Veder Gassnova Rotterdam Climate Initiative Bellona GEUS (Geological Survey of Risavika Gas Centre Denmark) BMWi Sargas BGR IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Schlumberger Programme CCSA Scottish Centre for Carbon IGME Storage CMR Imperial College Scottish Power CO2DeepStore IM Skaugen Senior CCS CO2Sense Kema Shell DECC National Grid SINTEF DCMR North West Regional SLR Consulting Doosan Babcock Development Agency DNV Statoil Norwegian Ministry of The Government of the Petroleum and Energy Teekay Shipping Netherlands The Crown Estate One North East ECN TNO Panaware EEEGR UK Coal Polish National Centre for Electricity Policy Research Research and Development Vattenfall Group (University of Cambridge) Polish Academy of Sciences VOPAKPage 110
  • 110. Chapter 10 - AcknowledgementsFigure 18: Carbon Capture and StorageCCS Decarbonised power for residential & Residential industrial uses CO2 from industrial sources Coal power station CO2 CO2 CO2 from refinery Coastal gas process terminal Gas power CO2 CO2 from hub station cement Ships with production Injection imported CO2 CO2 point Decarbonised Residential Subsea pipeline power for residential & industrial uses 1-3 km storage depth Sink, CO2 underground reservoir graphic: © 2010 Page 111
  • 111. Document design: www.paulweston.infoElement Energy Limited tel +44 (0) 1223 227 764Twenty fax +44 (0) 1223 356 215Station Road email info@element– 2JD www.element–