This presentation was given as part of the CCS Ready workshop which was held in association with the 6th Asia Clean Energy Forum (20 – 24 June, Manila) The workshop discussed the range of measures and best practices that can be implemented to prompt the design, permitting and construction of CCS projects when designing or building a new fossil fuelled energy or industrial plant. The workshop hosted participants of the Asian Development Banks’ Regional Technical Assistance Program who updated the group on the outcomes of their individual projects. This presentation provides an update on the current project being undertaken under the Asian Development Bank’s Regional Technical Assistance Program which aims to conduct an analysis of the potential for CCS, culminating in a road map for a CCS demonstration project in the Philippines.

1. Assessment of Potential for CCS in
the Calabarzon Region in the
Philippines
Raymond R. Tan, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Engineering & Sustainable Development Research
University Fellow and Professor of Chemical Engineering
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

2. Consulting Team
• Carlo Arcilla, Ph.D. (Local Team Leader)
• Susan Roces, Ph.D. (DLSU Team Leader)
• Raymond Tan, Ph.D. (Decision Analyst)
• Michael Promentilla, Ph.D. (Decision Analyst)
• Nathaniel Dugos, Ph.D. (Process Analyst)
• Pag-asa Gaspillo, Ph.D. (Process Analyst)
• Alyanna Uy (Research Assistant)

3. Outline of Presentation
• Overview of Philippine CO2 Emission Statistics
• Geographic Scope of Study (Calabarzon)
• Major CO2 Sources in Calabarzon
• Criteria
• Screening and Ranking of CO2 Sources
• Evaluation of Potential CO2 Storage Sites
• Social Acceptability Issues
• Status and Further Work

4. Philippine Primary Energy Mix in Mtoe/y
(Source: DOE, 2009)
Despite the relatively
Coal, 6.1
large share of
renewable and non-
Others, 16.8 conventional energy,
fossil fuels still comprise
Oil, 13.5 more than half of the
primary energy demand
Natural
Gas, 3.2 of about 40 Mtoe/y

5. Philippine CO2 Emissions in Mt/y by Sector
(Source: DOE, 2009)
Others, 4.8 Industry and power
generation account for
Industry, 11.7
more than half of the 70
Power Mt/y energy-based CO2
generation, 27.5 emissions
Transport, 24.5

6. Philippine Power Mix in GWh/y
(Source: DOE, 2009)
Natural gas and coal are
Oil Hydroelectricity the largest contributors
5,381 9,788
Natural Gas to the Philippine power
19,887
mix. Annual generation
is about 60 GWh.
Geothermal
10,324
Coal
16,476
Wind and Solar
79

7. Geographic Scope of Study
(Source: Wikipedia, 2010)
Calabarzon (Region IV-A)
consists of provinces
immediately to the south or
east of the National Capital
Region.
This region accounts for a
disproportionately large
share of total Philippine CO2
emissions.

8. Hierarchical Decision Criteria
Hard requisites or “musts” Soft requisites or “wants”
• Remaining service life • CO2 stream concentration
• Capacity utilization factor • CO2 stream volume
factor • Stream impurity levels
(NOx, SO2, PM)
• Space availability and
local geography
• Proximity to storage sites
• Declared interest in CCS

9. Major CO2 Sources in Calabarzon
Source Estimated CO2 Flowrate Notes
(Mt/y)
Coal Plant 1 3.80
Coal Plant 2 1.60
Coal Plant 3 3.44 Estimated from publicly reported rated
NG Plant 1 2.86 capacities and typical CO2 emission factors
NG Plant 2 1.38
NG Plant 3 3.23
Refinery 0.38
Offshore NG 0.17
Platform
Cement 1.35 Estimated from publicly reported
Plants 1 - 4 production volume and capacity utilization
TOTAL 18.21

10. Screening of CO2 Sources in Calabarzon
Source Remaining Life Capacity Utilization (>80%)
(>20 y)
Coal Plant 1 Yes Yes
Coal Plant 2 No No
Coal Plant 3 Yes Yes
NG Plant 1 Yes Yes
NG Plant 2 Yes Yes
NG Plant 3 Yes Yes
Refinery Yes Yes
Offshore NG Platform Yes Yes
Cement Plants 1 - 4 No data No data*
*Cement industry average capacity utilization in 2009 is reported by CeMAP to be
54%

11. Assessment of CO2 Sources in Calabarzon
Criterion Coal Coal NG NG NG NG Refinery
Plant 1 Plant 3 Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Platform
Stream CO2 concentration 9 10 1 1 1 1 5
CO2 flowrate 10 10 10 6 10 0 0
Stream SO2 concentration 0 5 10 10 10 10 0
Stream O2 concentration 8 9 0 0 0 0 1
Stream NOx concentration 0 6 9 9 10 0 0
Particulates content 0 0 10 10 10 10 0
Trace pollutants content 0 0 10 10 10 10 0
Implementation date 4 6 6 7 7 7 4
Distance from storage site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space availability 10 10 0 0 10 0 10
Plant efficiency 0 0 5 5 5 0 0
Proximity to water supply 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Company willingness to implement 0 5 0 0 5 5 5
CCS
TOTAL 4 6 9 8 10 3 2

12. Results of CO2 Source Assessment
• Coal Plant 2 has been eliminated from further
consideration due to age
• Full analysis of four cement plant will not be done until
acquisition of site-specific data
• Three natural-gas fired combined cycle plants are
promising candidates due to their age and large size
• Coal Plant 3 is also a promising candidate as it is
relatively new compared to the others

13. Determining the Potential for Carbon Capture and
Storage in Southeast Asia [RETA 7575]
Philippine Geology :
Initial Storage Assessment
Dr. Carlo A. Arcilla
Professor and Director
National Institute of Geological Sciences
University of the Philippines
Dr. Chelo Pascua
Assistant Professor
National Institute of Geological Sciences
University of the Philippines

16. Complex tectonics of the Philippines
• Diffuse plate boundary (unclear as to what plate
it belongs)
• Amalgamation of continental materials, ocean
floor (ophiolites), younger volcanics, and
immature basins
• Currently traversed by left-lateral Philippine fault
• 20 active volcanoes, 200 dormant
• Sedimentary basins formed due to complex
tectonics, are max. 25 Million years old

17. FAULTS &
TRENCHES

18. SEDIMENTARY &
OCEANIC BASINS

19. OPHIOLITES AND
GEOTHERMAL
SITES

20. GEOTHERMAL
SITES WITH
ACTIVITIES

21. SEDIMENTARY BASINS
OF THE PHILIPPINES
1. Cagayan Basin
2. Central Luzon Basin
3. Ilocos Trough
4. West Luzon Platform
5. Bicol Shelf/Lamon Bay
6. Southeast Luzon Basin
7. Iloilo Basin
8. Visayan and Samar Basin
9. Agusan-Davao Basiin
10. Cotabato Basin
11. Sulu Sea Basin
12. South Palawan Basin
13. North Palawan-Mindoro Basin

22. Sedimentary Basins of the Philippines
Basin Name Area Wildcat wells Total Resources
(km2) drill
Discovered Undiscovered % Gas
Ilocos 19,500 1 - 19 100%
Cagayan 24,000 30 0.4 396 99%
West Luzon 16,000 none - 23 100%
Central Luzon 16,500 17 - 902 100%
Bicol 32,500 6 - 44 100%
Mindoro-Cuyo 58,000 15 25 806 7%
W. Masbate-Iloilo 25,000 10 - 5 72%
SE Luzon 66,000 26 - 301 36%
Visayan 46,500 143 0.5 1,259 28%
Reed Bank 71,000 4 - 440 92%
NW Palawan 36,000 58 942 1,376 72% (13%-C)
SW Palawan 44,000 23 - 1,355 60%
East Palawan 92,000 4 - 443 28%
Sulu Sea 115,000 17 - 203 36%
Cotabato 14,000 10 5 152 45%
Agusan-Davao 33,000 3 - 196 70%

23. Data under collection
LUZON
Basin Area Thickness of Estimated Percentage Ave. Porosity Basin Basin Ave.
Name Covered Sedimentary Basin Permeable of Permeable Pressure Temp. Geothermal
(km2) Fill (km) Volume Units Units Range Range Gradient
(km3) (lithology (%) (C/100 m)
based) (include range)
Cagayan 28,000 ~9
Central Luzon 16,000 >9 1.9
Ilocos 15,000 ~8
West Luzon 12,500 ~9
Bicol 34,000 ~3
Shelf/Lamon
Bay
Southeast 40,000 3.5-8 4.01-3.29
Luzon (onshore)
~7.5
(offshore)

24. CAGAYAN
*well location, CCOP-DOE, Aug 2002

25. CENTRAL LUZON
*well location, CCOP-DOE, Aug 2002

26. Possible CCS options in the Philippines
GENERAL:
 Saline aquifers (work in progress)
 Depleted oil and gas fields (need past production data and reserves)
NOVEL:
 Geothermal systems (commercial partner for technology assessment)
 Mineral trapping in ophiolite sequences (access via fractures)
 Mineral carbonation i.e. calcite, magnesite
 Laterite carbonation i.e. siderite
 Direct sequestration from atmospheric CO2
 Hyperalkaline springs i.e. tufa deposits
 Engineered systems similar to these natural CCS mechanisms

27. Additional Social Acceptability Issues
• Public awareness of CCS as a low-carbon option in the
Philippines remains low
• Added cost of power resulting from CCS energy
penalties have been raised as a major cause for concern
in previous public discussions held at DOE
• Grid-wide losses due to CCS energy penalties will need
to be compensated for by new plants

28. Status and Further Work
• Data verification
• Filling of data gaps
• Performing sensitivity analysis on decision matrix
• Techno-economic analysis for identified CO2 sources
• Qualitative analysis of other decision criteria
• Integrated analysis of CO2 source and sink matches

29. Thank you for your attention
Questions and comments are welcome
Or contact us via e-mail:
Dr. Carlo Arcilla (caloy.arcilla@gmail.com)
Dr. Susan Roces (susan.roces@dlsu.edu.ph)