Hans Schoenmakers - ROAD

1. PANEL 1
INTERNATIONAL PROGRESS ON CCS PROJECTS
Len Heckel – Shell Quest
Laura Miller – Summit Power
Hans Schoenmakers – ROAD

2. International Members’ Meeting Global CCS Institute
Calgary, Canada 10-11 October 2012
CCS in Europe: Frontrunner or Follower?
Hans Schoenmakers
ROAD / EU CCS Project Network

3. Ambition vs. Reality (1)
• EU ambition (2010): 12 CCS demo’s operational by 2020
• All technologies for Capture and Storage should be
demonstrated
• Projects should include: power generation and industrial
• Two support programmes have been initiated by the EU:
o European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR, 2009)
- € 1 bln for 6 projects
o New Entrants Reserve 300 (NER 300)
 300 mln EUA’s mounting up to
..... € 9 bln or ......€ 2.4 bln?
for another 6 projects
Page 3

4. Ambition vs. Reality (2)
EEPR has awarded 6 projects in a strong portfolio
Bełchatów (Poland)
Don Valley (UK) Post combustion
Pre combustion Onshore
Offshore Saline aquifers
Gas reservoir
Jänschwalde (Germany)
(Rotterdam) Oxy fuel/post combustion
Post combustion Onshore
Offshore
Gas reservoir
Compostilla (Spain) Porto Tolle (Italy)
Oxfuel + CFB Post combustion
Onshore Offshore
Saline aquifers Saline aquifers Page 4

5. Ambition vs. Reality (3)
•Roundtable
Individual projects face multiple barriers:
o Implementation of EU CCS Directive into national legislation
o Appraisal of storage sites
o Obtaining necessary permits for capture, transport and storage
o Absence public acceptance and most of all: a business case
• Barriers have severely delayed most of EEPR projects
…or worse…
• EU Round Table (21 September 2012):
o Jänschwalde cancelled
o Porto Tolle (It), Compostilla (Spain), Belchatów (Poland)
seriously delayed (beyond planning allowed by EEPR)
o Don Valley (UK) delayed, but hopeful
o ROAD (NL) slightly delayed, but ready for FID provided for
remaining financial gap
Page 5

6. Ambition vs. Reality (4)
NER 300 (phase 1) top 3 list:
• Don Valley (UK)
• Belchatów (Poland)
• Green Hydrogen (NL)
Absence of economic driver is main problem:
• Financial and economic crisis
• Malfunctioning EU ETS
o EUA price decreased from ~€ 30 (2009) to ~€ 7 (2012)
o additional financial gap: € 25 mln/operational year for EEPR
projects
o EOR not emerging in Europe yet
o NER 300 value has almost evaporated Page 6

7. Ambition vs. Reality (5)
• EU Energy Roadmap 2050 still indicates that CCS has to play a
crucial role in Europe’s energy supply in next decades
• Demonstration projects running by 2020 are a must, however
ambition has been tempered to 3 projects
• EU ETS must/will be reshaped, which is good for long term
perspective, but not short term solution for EU demo’s
• Available public funding has to be reallocated, a real
European approach is necessary (bi-lateral or even
multilateral co-operation between member states) and
investors have to cluster (participate in other projects)
 How to select / how to cluster projects?
 Formalities (granting schemes) have to be overcome:
o Technology compatibility
o Availability of permits
o Public acceptance
o Transport & storage are local/national,
however CO2-hub concept is transnational Page 7

8. Rotterdam CCS Network: Intergrated Approach
•Roundtable is not a one shot
ROAD
opportunity, but stepping
stone for development of
CO2 network in port of
Rotterdam
• ROAD is ideal platform to
develop CO2 network aligned
with strategic objectives of
port of Rotterdam and
combines interest of many
national and international
stakeholders
Page 8

9. Worldwide Knowledge Sharing
• Is it a problem that reality lags behind our ambition (and
Europe not being a frontrunner)?
• Key word: “worldwide knowledge sharing”
• Juho Lipponen, IEA (EU Round Table, 21 September 2012):
“Europe has to be learning with other parts of the world.
Then 10-12 projects worldwide can be sufficient”
Page 9

10. CCS Project Network:
Europe’s Knowledge Dissemination Platform

11. What is CCS Project Network?
Established in 2009 to generate early benefit from a coordinated
European action on CCS-demonstration projects
Current members: five remaining projects + Sleipner (No)
Projects fulfilling qualification criteria can join
Objectives
Enabling knowledge-sharing amongst projects
Leverage experience of projects in order to gain public
confidence about CCS
Promote CCS, EU leadership and cooperation potential to third
parties/countries
| | | | 11

12. Network Update – Change of Secretariat
New secretariat for Network effective as of 21 March 2012
 Global CCS Institute is a not-for-profit independent entity.
Its global
members include 360 government, industry, academia bodies. It
focuses on knowledge sharing and assisting projects
 IFPEN is a public-sector research, industrial innovation and training
centre active in fields of energy, transport and environment
 TNO applies scientific knowledge with aim of strengthening
innovative power of industry and government
 SINTEF is one of largest independent European research institutes,
focusing on power generation and energy conversion technologies,
distribution and end-use
| | | | 12

13. What Will We Do?
A deeper and more focused approach to knowledge sharing:
Collecting data and sharing them in-line with the Protocol
Reviewing the current system for data collection and sharing
Greater and clearer dissemination of findings
More focused topics that continue to be developed in 2012:
Public Engagement
Regulatory Development
Storage (monitoring, characterization)
Development of “new” tools such as webinars and methods for fast-
bilateral exchange
Network with networks
| | | | 13

14. Thematic Group Outputs
| | | | 14

15. Joining Other FEED Studies
Jänschwalde Project - Vattenfall (2012), supported by the European Union
Germany - Power sector, 300MW, oxyfuel and post-combustion, 1.7m CO2 per year capture, onshore storage.
Kingsnorth project - E.ON (2010), supported by the UK Government
Power sector –UK - Post-combustion. 1m CO2 per year capture, offshore storage.
Longannet project - ScottishPower Consortium’s FEED studies (2011), supported by the
UK Government
Power sector –UK - Post-combustion, 1m CO2 per year capture, offshore storage.
Mountaineer II Project - AEP (2012), supported by the Global CCS Institute and US
Department of Energy.
USA - Power sector, Post-combustion. 1m CO2 per year capture, onshore storage.
The ROAD project (2011), supported by the Global CCS Institute, Government of the
Netherlands and European Union.
Netherlands - Power sector, 250MW, Post-combustion, 1.1m CO2 per year capture, offshore storage.
Trailblazer project - Tenaska (2012), supported by the Global CCS Institute
USA - Power sector, 760MW, post-combustion, 1m CO2 per year capture, onshore EOR storage.
| | | | 15

16. Conclusions
•Roundtable
Network is in good shape, but is heavily dependent on
success of EU CCS demonstration projects
• Number of projects in Network may be smaller and more
divers
• Worldwide knowledge sharing will be key for development of
CCS in Europe
• Global CCS Institute is well placed to give an impulse to
globalization and intensification of knowledge sharing
• Expectations on Global CCS Institute’s role as secretariat of
Network are high
CCS in Europe: no frontrunner, no follower,
but meaningful partner Page 16