• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
CCS projects a North American perspective – Victor Der - Global CCS Institute Members Meeting - Rotterdam May 2011
 

CCS projects a North American perspective – Victor Der - Global CCS Institute Members Meeting - Rotterdam May 2011

on

  • 1,167 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,167
Views on SlideShare
1,167
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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.

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

    CCS projects a North American perspective – Victor Der - Global CCS Institute Members Meeting - Rotterdam May 2011 CCS projects a North American perspective – Victor Der - Global CCS Institute Members Meeting - Rotterdam May 2011 Presentation Transcript

    • STATUS OF CCS DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS- NORTH AMERICAGLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE MEMBERS MEETING ROTTERDAM, NETHERLANDSMAY 9, 2011
      VICTOR K. DER
      Former CSLF Policy Chair
      Former USDOE Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy (actg)
    • HOW CCS FIT INTO U.S. CLEAN ENERGY STANDARDS
      U.S. Administration Advocating a Clean Energy Standard for Electricity of 80 % (GHG - Carbon emission-equivalent free) by 2035
      Big finds in Shale Gas =>Push for Natural Gas Combined Cycle as part of the portfolio. The most NGCC can contribute is 40% since it’s value is taken as 0.5 GHG content per unit energy.
      That means, absent coal and/or gas with CCS, nuclear and renewables will have to shoulder 60%--a tall order by 2035
      That is why CCS is considered a necessary part of the portfolio, whether it be CCS on coal or natural gas generation.
    • CURRENT CCS SITUATION IN U.S.
      NO LEGISLATIVE CO2 MANDATE = TOUGH TO RATE BASE CCS
      EPA Underground Injection Code – Clean Water Act – Regional Class 2 Injection for EOR vs Class 6 Storage requirements
      EPA AIR EMISSIONS FOR GHG – issued in January 2011; working out details –perhaps in place by 2012; State of Texas law suit pending against EPA
      PROPOSED BILL IN SENATE FOR CLEAN ENERGY STANDARD ALIGNED WITH ADMINISTRATION PUSH FOR 80% CES BY 2035
      Projects that go forward will need to make it on the market demand for CO2 and other factors
      Absent a national mandate on carbon, some States may end up taking a lead role for CCS (e.g., California, Texas, etc.) , but for EOR--– CO2 demand creating a driver for capture.
    • CANADA: Important Steps Have Been Taken ( $4.5B Government Funds)
      Federal government
      • ~$1.3 billion for CCS supporting studies and demo projects
      • Clean Energy Dialogue with the United States
      Alberta government
      • $2B towards deployment of 4 projects by 2015
      • Groundbreaking CCS legislation:
      • Assumption of long-term liability
      • Establishment of long-term stewardship fund
      • Address pore space ownership
      Saskatchewan, British Columbia & Maritimes
      • Approval of SaskPower’s $1.24B CCS project
      • Advancement of several other large-scale CCS projects
      • Study work to understand underground storage potential
    • POLICY INCENTIVES FOR U.S. CCS DEMOS
      TAX INCENTIVES
      INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT –Secs 48A & 48B – limit (~ 4GW)
      PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT –Sec 45Q – limited to 75MM tonnes; $10 for EOR; $20 for Storage
      FAVORABLE RECENT TREASURY PROCEDURAL RULING ALLOWS “STACKING” BENEFITS (production credit now allowed for first 65% capture under 45Q requirement)
      LOAN GUARANTEES for gasification and combustion with CCS are funding limited thus far (Section 1703 of EPAct 2005)
      US DOE Demonstration Funding for CCS Power Demos:
      Recovery Act ($800M + $1B for FutureGen 2.0)
      Clean Coal Power Initiative- $600M from Appropriations
      Industrial CCS- pilot demos from Recovery Act funding-$686M
      RECOVERY ACT- Industrial CC Utilization (CCUS) projects
    • DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES LIMITATIONS
      EVEN WITH TAX INCENTIVES, GOV’T DEMO FUNDING, AND LOAN GUARANTEES WHERE THEY EXIST, PROJECT MUST BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE ON ITS OWN
      HURDLES:
      LACK OF CARBON VALUATION LIMITS THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS
      STATE REGULATORY RELUCTANT TO ALLOW R&D (ELECTRICITY COST PREMIUM FOR DEMOS) INTO RATE BASE
      LONG –TERM LIABILITY NOT ADDRESSED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL– SOME STATES MAY BE WILLING TO ACCEPT LIABIILITY WITH TERMS TO BE DETERMINED– TEXAS SEEMS TO BE A LEADER (SEES A BUSINESS IN CO2 STORAGE ALONG WITH EOR )
      MAJORITY OF THE CCS PROJECT MAKE USE OF CO2 FOR EOR APPLICATIONS.
    • STORAGE LIABILITY SITUATION IN U.S.
      CURRENT FOCUS ON LONG TERM LIABIILTY ON NATIONAL LEVEL HAS COOLED - ABSENT A NATIONAL CARBON MANDATE
      PAST PROPOSALS ON LONG-TERM LIABILITY /INDEMNIFICATION INCLUDED:
      An Industry proposal on capped pay-in fee with subsequent hand-off of liability to government
      Congressional draft legislation for indemnification of long-term liability after post-closure stabilization for first 10 large scale CCS demos ( >1 MMT/YR) with a pay-in for risk coverage– monetizing storage risk
      INSURANCE INDUSTRY MAY COVER A LIMITED POST-OPERATIONAL PERIOD– BUT NEED TO COLLECT PREMIUMS DURING OPERATIONS
      EPA UIC REGS MANDATE NOMINAL 50-YEAR MONITORING IN POST OPERATIONS UNLESS CAN SHOW OTHERWISE A STABLE CO2 “PLUME”
      STATES (E.G., TEXAS) MAY WANT TO ASSUME LIABILITY – FOR REVENUES
    • Nine Major U.S. CCS Demonstration ProjectsLocation & Cost Share
      Total Cost: $10.7B
      DOE – $3.4 B
      Non-Federal – $7.3 B
      Archer Daniels Midland
      Industrial Power & Ethanol
      $208M – Total
      $141M – DOE
      Future Gen 2.0
      Oxy-combustion/Regional Repository
      $1.24B – Total
      $1B – DOE
      Summit TX Clean Energy
      Commercial Demo of Advanced
      IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture
      $1.727B – Total
      $450M – DOE
      NRG
      Post Combustion CO2 Capture
      $334M – Total
      $167M – DOE
      AEP
      Post Combustion CO2 Capture
      $668M – Total
      $334M – DOE
      HECA
      Commercial Demo of Advanced
      IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture
      $2.840B – Total
      $404M – DOE
      Southern Company
      IGCC-Transport Gasifier
      w/Carbon Capture
      $2.880B – Total
      $293M – DOE
      Air Products
      H2 Production
      $431M – Total
      $284M – DOE
      Leucadia Energy
      Methanol
      $436M – Total
      $261M – DOE
      These projects collectively will capture up 16 million TPY of CO2
      Source: U.S. DOE Office of Fossil Energy
    • STATUS AND DESCRIPTION OF CCS DEMOS
      SIX OF NINE U.S. AND ALL CANADIAN PROJECTS = EOR; ALL AT >1MM CO2 TONNES/YR EXCEPT ONE
      SIX POWER CCS DEMOS IN U.S.:
      FUTUREGEN 2.0 –OXYCOMBUSTION IN SALINE;
      KEMPER- AIR-BLOWN IGCC WITH EOR;
      AEP POST-COMBUSTION- SALINE;
      HECA- OXYGEN-BLOWN IGCC - EOR;
      TCEP- OXYGEN- BLOWN POLYGEN GASIFICATION-EOR;
      NRG- POST-COMBUSTION-(400,000 TNS CO2/YR) -EOR
      THREE INDUSTRIAL CCS IN U.S.
      ADM- ETHANOL POST-CAPTURE-SALINE;
      LEUCADIA – METHANOL -POST CAPTURE - EOR;
      AIR PRODUCTS- H2- SEPARATION - EOR
    • Canada’s CCS Projects
    • FUNDING SOURCES FOR CCS DEMOS
      BALANCE VS OFF BALANCE SHEET PROJECT – DEPENDS ON PROJECT ECONOMICS, RISK EXPOSURE, RATE BASING AND OPERATING REVENUE SOURCES; AND IF RECEIVE DOE GRANT FOR DEMO => TAXABILITY OF GRANT (US TAX CODE 118) IF NOT A CORPORATION VS LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION (LLC)
      DOE COST SHARE AND PARTNER EQUITY – DOE’S CONTRIBUTION DOESN’T DILUTE PROJECT EQUITY AND INCREASES LEVERAGING
      FINANCING FOR OFF-BALANCE SHEET – THOROUGH FINANCIAL DUE DILIGENCE, EQUITY CONTRIBUTION (“SKIN IN THE GAME”), ACCURATE COST ESTIMATION, RISK SHARING, OFF-TAKE AGREEMENTS STRUCTURE ARE A MUST FOR FINANCEABILITY EVEN WITH GOV’T LOAN GUARANTEES;
      TAX INCENTIVES CAN HELP EARLY-MOVERS IN A MERCHANT MARKET ABSENT A REGULATED RATE BASE ALLOWANCE
    • SOME U.S. EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNED
      Absent Carbon mandate, must base CCS projects on project economics that meet risk and return with value products slate including CO2 and off-take agreements
      Engage the State early to solicit support on:
      Long –term liability;
      Site unitization plans and subsurface rights;
      Work with state commissions, regulators, legislators, public interest groups, and affected public
      Enlist support of environmental groups by showing the project advantages vs. the alternatives over the long term
      Locate CCS projects in communities willing to accept by offering economic, social and environmental benefits – DON’T GO WHERE YOU’RE NOT WANTED.
    • SOME U.S. EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNED (continued)
      Lock in feedstock supply agreements, off-takes agreements for CO2 or other co-produced products (Gasification advantage), and rate-basing or Power Purchase Agreement in States with low-carbon or clean coal electricity portfolio (e.g., Calif., Illinois)
      Tightened, detailed cost-estimates , contingency management, and incentivize holding to schedule; go with reputation via use of world-class contractors (EPCs and A&Es, vendors)
      Allocate and manage risks among equity holders, suppliers, and financiers with proven technology components, securing warrantees and performance guarantees, and design for optimal availability for revenue and return.
      Engage stakeholders, and local community to answer the question: “What’s in it for me?” if you locate in my area.
    • SOME FINAL THOUGHTS ON FIRST WAVE OF CCS DEMOS IN NORTH AMERICA
      DIFFICULT SITUATION ABSENT FEDERAL CARBON MANDATE
      STATES AND PROVINCES ARE KEY TO HELPING FIRST CCS DEMOS
      PROJECTS THAT MOVE FORWARD HAVE A VALUE PROPOSITION VIA CO2- EOR APPLICATIONS (6 OF THE 9 US DEMOS AND ALL CANADIAN DEMOS INVOLVE EOR) – A KEY TO EARLY ADOPTION OF CCS AND CCUS
      LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROJECTS ARE IMPORTANT TO IMPART (E.G., SECURIING RIGHTS/PERMITS; COMMUNITY, STATE REGULATORY SUPPORT)
      IN U.S. , CCS CAPACITY BUILDING IS OCCURRING AT THE STATE AND REGIONAL LEVELS, IE, CAPACITY BUILDING IS NOT JUST FOR DEVELOPING ECONOMIES ANYMORE!
      CCUS- A WAY TO VALUE CARBON AS A FEEDSTOCK FOR PRODUCTS
      FINDING FUNDING FOR NEXT GENERATION OF DEMOS WILL BE DIFFICULT