CCS: Global opportunities and strategic directions

1,540 views

Published on

In support of the Institute’s strategic plan to assist CCS projects through knowledge sharing, the North American team hosted its Second Annual North American Forum on CCS: Global Opportunities and Strategic Directions at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. on 5 February 2013.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,540
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
179
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
78
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • IEA – WEO data from Current Policies Scenario (former Reference Scenario)
  • Background NotesExcerpt on IEA methodology from IEA’s “Energy Technology Perspectives 2010”:“The ETP 2010 Baseline scenario follows the Reference scenario to 2030 outlined in the World Energy Outlook 2009, and then extends it to 2050. It assumes governments introduce no new energy and climate policies. In contrast, the BLUE Map scenario (with several variants) is target-oriented: it sets the goal of halving global energy-related CO2 emissions by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels) and examines the least-cost means of achieving that goal through the deployment of existing and new low-carbon technologies.”CCS alone will not enable us to meet our climate policy objectivesWe propose to use utilization piece to learn and make storage in saline formations a reality
  • The development of catalytic technologies capable of converting CO2 into revenue generating chemicals, such as methane & methanol, which can be sold to offset the costs associated with carbon management, is a rapidly developing area of research. The energy required to drive this endothermic conversion mustbe provided by carbon friendly solar or electrical sources, waste power from the grid or industrial processes, or industrial waste heat. Many of the catalysts under investigation can use either H2O or H2 as the hydrogen source offering a unique degree of flexibility in the feedstock supply.C1 products are a flexible target product because they can be used directly as fuels (CH4 and CH3OH) or are already widely used in the industrial chemical market. This is advantageous because the infrastructure and technologies required to transport and utilize these products downstream already exists and is widely deployed.Technical challenges in this field involve developing efficient catalysts capable of utilizing non-conventional forms of energy to drive the endothermic catalytic conversion of CO2. For solid state systems, such as CuGaFeO2 based delafossites, the combination of elements and compositional loadings that can be used in place of Cu, Ga, and Fe exceeds 10,000. This number of possible catalysts is completely unapproachable from an experimental standpoint. In this regard, high through put computational methods are being used to accelerate catalyst design by screening these new catalysts and then the most promising candidates then synthesized experimentally.For photo-based utilization, most popular catalysts can only utilized ultraviolet light to drive a catalytic reaction. In this regard, developing new materials that can also use visible and near infrared light to drive reactions is a key research topic. New approaches have investigated quantum dots to sensitize popular metal oxide catalysts, such as TiO2, and improve its use of the solar spectrum increasing its efficiency by over 10 fold. Also of interest are approaches which can efficiently convert solar light to thermal energy. In this area, plasmonic systems based on Au and ZnO are being used to efficiently drive thermal catalytic reactions using photon exciation.Electrocatalyst technologies always suffer from “overpotential” inefficiences associated with the energy required to overcome the activation barrier of the reaction. These overpotentials also drive unwanted side reactions that further reduce efficiency and impact catalytic selectivity. A new nanocluster based on 25 Au atoms and 18 organothiol stabilizing ligands has been shown to overcome these overpotential issues. The unique size of this nanocluster produces quantum confinement effects that give it a ground state anionic charge that leads to enhanced interactions with CO2. Ultimately, these Au25 clusters have been demonstrated to be the most efficienct CO2 electrocatalysts ever reported converting CO2 with no appreciable overpotential and thus nearly 100 % efficiency. Developing highly reactive “traditional” catalysts on high surface area supports which can utilize low-temperature waste heat is also a priorty area of research. In this regard, small Cu nanoparticles supported on high surface area ZnO have been shown to outperform catalysts with micron sized Cu materials. This nano-sized Cu challenges current commercially available catalysts.
  • Least cost abatement: CCS = 14% to 2050 (17% in 2050)$3 trillion extra capital if no CCS.CCS = In 2050 CCS contributes 7 Gt/42Gt reduction12 x Canada’s current energy related CO2 emissions (EIA figure for 2010 at 548.754) or 1.2 x US’s current energy related CO2 emissions (EIA figure for 2010 at 5610 Mtpa)
  • Around the world, the eight large-scale CCS projects in operation can store more than 23 million tonnes of CO2 per year. This is not an insignificant figure – it is more abatement than the total country-level reductions in Australia, through all of the climate policies to date.Then there are a further nine projects currently under construction and in 2015 these projects will increase the total to over 37 million tonnes of stored CO2 a year.
  • This is approximately 70 per cent of the IEA’s target for mitigation activities for CCS by 2015.But by 2020, the IEA’s projections for CCS deployment require about 130 projects storing more than 258 tonnes of CO2 per year.Clearly we will be well short of this.Ramp up to achieve the needed mitigation by CCS of 7Gt of CO2 in the year 2050 is enormous. This is over 300 times what is currently being stored.
  • This nearer term goal for 2020 continues to be harder to reach as the potential for projects to store CO2 in the year 2020 from active and planned continues to decrease.In the current economic environment, we are seeing less large projects and more smaller projects and the expected capacities for networks and clusters being reduced in the near term.
  • In October 2012 we were talking about a net increase of one project for the previous year making 75 in total.Since October we have removed three projects from our tracking list - 2 in Europe which were put on hold and one in the US that is no longer under active development – reducing this total to 72.However a welcome trend since 2010 is a steady increase of projects making a positive FID and moving into construction.Also great to see another project moving into construction (being the Execute Stage) which was the North West Redwater Partnership’s Alberta Carbon Trunk Line ("ACTL") with North West Sturgeon Refinery CO2 Stream project. Construction is expected to break ground in early 2013, with the plant scheduled to commence operations in 2015. The North West Sturgeon Refinery will be the first oil refinery to include CCS in its original design.In more good news it is anticipated that Summit Power’s Texas Clean Energy Project and NRG Energy Parish CCS Project could be in a position to reach an FID in the first half of 2013.We are also looking forward to two projects in the US that are expected to become operational in 2013, being Air Products Steam Methane Reformer EOR project in Texas and ADM’s Illinois Industrial CCS Project. Our concern is that not enough projects are moving beyond the Identify, Define and Evaluate stages to sustain the critically needed progress. The problem is the CCS cost gap which can only be reduced by more research, development and demonstration. We need to see more incentives around the world, including in North America, to help accelerate new CCS projects or we reduce our chances of world-wide deployment in the required timeframe
  • Thirteen of the 17 LSIPs in operation or under construction (‘Active’) are located in North America – that is more than 75 per cent.The US alone accounts for nearly half of the world’s Active LSIPs including the first two integrated power projects under construction.Although North America has the most advanced CCS portfolio in the world, here too there are not enough new projects in the pipeline to continue making progress and build on the lessons learnt from the earlier projects.
  • This Figure shows us the spread across storage types for the large scale integrated projects.In the short to medium term CO2 EOR is taking a larger role in the current suite of projects – with now over half of the large-scale integrated projects having CO2 EOR as their primary storage option (up 5 % since 2011).As an additional source of revenue, CO2 EOR has become a strong driver supporting projects, particularly in North America, China and the Middle East.When we last reported in October 2012 amongst the changes within the set of projects from 2011 to 2012 is that eight previously-identified projects were cancelled, put on hold or restructured. These were offset by nine newly identified projects, and of these, five were in China.China is a fast emerging force in CCS.This spike of new projects in 2012 has meant that China has overtaken Canada to now having the third highest potential to store CO2 through CCS projects.Importantly all of the newly-identified projects in China are investigating the use of EOR.
  • Some additional thoughts on CCUS CO2-EOR presents an important opportunity to advance CCS technology and store large quantities of CO2 in the process. The enabling aspect of CO2-EOR can increase the number of near term demonstrations which in turn: (1) prove and improve CCS technology, (2) reduce CCS cost, (3) help gain public and policymaker acceptance because of the similarities between conventional CO2-EOR and CCS, (4) build a knowledgeable CCS workforce, and (5) help develop CO2 transportation networksThese benefits should significantly improve the prospects for world-wide CCS deployment efforts.
  • Nevertheless…Current assessments of the potential for storage in depleted oil and gas fields strongly suggest that deep saline formations will provide the bulk of storage in the long term. So we must continue to develop saline and other geologic storage options. CO2 revenue is presently not sufficient to cover the additional expense of CCS in high cost capture scenarios such as power generation and cement production. Other incentives are necessary until we can bring down the cost down.And while there is confidence that CO2-EOR permanently stores the vast majority of the CO2 injected during the process, storage accounting has not been required of CO2-EOR projects. Therefore, policymakers should develop fit-for-purpose regulatory standards for CO2-EOR projects in order to qualify as storage and GHG abatement.
  • I want to note and show my appreciation for the strong support that the Canadian and US federal, provincial and state governments have provided to CCS – and encourage it to continue. Both countries have been generous in their financial support for CCS research and demonstration.Both countries also recognize CCS as compliance pathway in their respective performance standards for electric utilities. There has also been considerable CCS leadership demonstrated at the individual provincial and state levels including financial incentives and, importantly, development of legal and regulatory frameworks to eliminate CCS barrier issues. I’m optimistic that there will be more to come. In the last U.S. Congress legislation was proposed that would include CCS in a clean energy portfolio standard. Senator Rockefeller announced that he would be submitting new legislation that will include incentives for growth and development of CCS. And ideas are being vetted for a production tax credit associated with carbon capture and storage through EOR that could be revenue neutral or even positive to the government due to the additional tax revenue on the produced oil.These are examples of the type of creative, forward looking thinking needed to ready CCS for world-wide deployment.
  • This slide is Taken from a study conducted by the Institute and published in 2011 that drew on a number of reputable studies of low carbon technologies. The big picture clearly shows that CCS is a cost-competitive technology compared to other CO2 mitigation options. But we don't want to stop here. Additional research and demonstration will substantially reduce the costs of CCS and other emerging low-carbon technologies and improve the chances of meeting global climate change objectives. Difficulties arise as CCS is often not treated equivalently to other low-carbon technologies in policy settings and government support.Like many emerging technologies, CCS faces barriers that discourage new projects from emerging and prevent planned projects moving forward. Funding for CCS demonstration projects, while still considerable faces future challenges as there is limited money on the horizon for new CCS projects... It has also been realised that the level of funding support still available will service fewer projects than initially anticipated. The relatively higher-cost CCS projects (for example in the power, steel and cement sectors) require strong government support continuing into the operational phase. In order to achieve emission reductions in the most efficient and effective way, governments should provide necessary support for development of all viable low-carbon technologies on an equivalent basis. .
  • In Norway and Canada, two events highlight the benefits of public and private sector support in advancing cost-effective technologies. In Canada, it was an exciting development to see Shell’s Quest project announce in September that it will move forward and capture and store more than one million tonnes of CO2 produced at the Athabasca Oil Sands Project. It is also very encouraging that Quest will be storing CO2 in deep saline formations. There are two others in construction that will also be storing in deep saline formations being Gorgon and ADM’s Illinois Industrial CCS project. FutureGen is also planning to store CO2 in deep saline formations.In Norway, the US$1 billion Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM) was opened in May 2012 and is an industrial-scale test centre for post-combustion carbon capture carbon capture.This adds to a number of large pilots that have been successfully demonstrating different capture operations within Europe and the world, and will contribute to efforts to reduce the costs associated with capture.The knowledge generated by both of these facilities will drive innovation around the world.It is noteworthy that power generation has yet to be demonstrated at scale.It was however very promising when Southern Company’s post-combustion Plant Barry in the US recently became the world’s largest (at 25 MW) integrated CCS project at a coal-fired power plant earlier this year and is storing CO2 in saline formations.This will complement the integrated gas power plant that has been operating at Lacq since 2010.Going forward commercial-scale demonstration of capture requires application at increasing scales with integration into industrial processes and power stations.It is promising that there are two large-scale demonstration power generation projects currently under construction with both scheduled to begin operation in 2014. They are: Kemper County in the US and Boundary Dam in Canada. More early commercial-scale demonstration projects like these are needed to reduce cost and optimise performance through learning by doing and to convince the public and policy makers that CCS is safe and effective.
  • Climate change legislation must not be delayed. Timely and stable policy support is required to deal with the barriers to implementation of CCS. This will drive industry confidence, encouraging more innovation, and ultimately reducing capital and operating costs.To achieve emission reductions in the most efficient and effective way governments should ensure that CCS is not disadvantaged. They must review their policies to ensure that CCS can play a full part in the portfolio of low-carbon technologies.Funding for CCS demonstration projects by governments and industry should be accelerated and incentives increased to develop the technology and bring down costs through innovation.Sharing expertise and learning from CCS projects around the world must be encouraged to ensure that progress is made as quickly as possible. Creating a business case and managing the technology is a complex and difficult process, so capturing and using lessons from other projects is vital. Importantly, this knowledge must be shared with developing countries where 70 per cent of CCS deployment must occur by 2050.
  • The Global Status of CCS is our flagship publication2012 was the fourth year that the Global CCS Institute has reported globally on CCS.Our January 2013 update of the large-scale integrated project numbers is now available from our website, along with many other CCS publications, or there are hard copies at our booth.
  • CCS: Global opportunities and strategic directions

    1. 1. WELCOME TO THE 2ND ANNUAL NORTH AMERICAN FORUMCCS/CCUS: GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS5 February 2013Washington, D.C.WWW.GLOBALCCSINSTITUTE.COM
    2. 2. INTRODUCTION AND OPENINGREMARKSVictor DerGeneral Manager, North AmericaGlobal CCS Institute 2
    3. 3. CCS/CCUS: Global Opportunities and StrategicDirections Agenda8:30-8:40 Introduction and Opening Remarks8:40-9:00 Welcome9:00-9:30 Energy and the Environment: Looking Forward9:30-10:00 The Global Status of CCS and the Institute’s Future Strategic Direction10:00-10:30 Break10:30-11:45 Industry Roundtable: Lessons Learned from Early CCS/CCUS Demonstration and Deployment Efforts in North America and Path Forward11:45-1:00 Lunch1:00-2:15 Legal and Regulatory Roundtable: Using Legal and Regulatory Frameworks to Advance CCUS Technology Development and Deployment in North America2:15-2:45 Break2:45-4:00 Technology Roundtable: Bringing Down the Cost of CO2 Capture, ROI in EOR Applications, and Size of Recoverable Resource4:00-5:00 International Governments Roundtable on CCS/CCUS: Perspectives in Incentivizing Industry to Move Forward with CCS/CCUS5:00-5:30 Wrap-up and Meeting Conclusion5:30-6:45 Reception
    4. 4. WELCOMESheila RiordonMinister (Political)Embassy of Canada 4
    5. 5. WELCOMEGraham FletcherDeputy Chief of Mission to the United StatesEmbassy of Australia 5
    6. 6. ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT:LOOKING FORWARDDr. Anthony CuginiDirectorNational Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)U.S. Department of Energy 6
    7. 7. The Path Ahead for CCS
    8. 8. Meeting the President’s Energy Goals “This country needs an all-out,all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.” President Barack Obama State of the Union Address January 24, 2012 Photo courtesy of the White House, Pete Souza
    9. 9. Fossil Energy’s Role in All-of-the-Above Strategy• Fossil Energy represents a key component of this strategy – To maintain the relevancy of fossil energy, specifically coal, in future energy scenarios, carbon capture and storage must be technically viable and cost competitive – Shale gas and unconventional gas and oil must be safe and environmentally friendly and utilized in the most efficient manner possible – Future sources of fossil energy, including natural gas hydrates represent potential options to secure our energy future and continue our movement toward energy security
    10. 10. Energy Demand 2010 Energy Demand 2035 98 QBtu / Year 107 QBtu / Year 83% Fossil Energy 77% Fossil Energy Coal Gas Coal Gas 21% 25% + 9% 20% 26% Nuclear United States Oil Oil Nuclear 9% 8% 37% 32% Renewables Renewables 8% 14% 5,634 mmt CO2 5,758 mmt CO2 505 QBtu / Year 741 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy 80% Fossil Energy Coal Gas + 47% Coal Gas 27% 22% Nuclear 30% 23% 6% World Nuclear 6% Oil Oil 32% Renewables 27% 13% Renewables 14% 30,190 mmt CO2 44,090 mmt CO2 Sources: U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2012: World data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2012
    11. 11. Pathways to CO2 Emission Reduction• Energy efficiency (14 GtCO2e/yr)1 – Vehicles, Buildings, industrial equipment• Low-carbon energy supply (12 GtCO2e/yr) – Wind, Nuclear, Solar Energy – Biofuels for transportation – Carbon Capture and Storage• Terrestrial carbon (12 GtCO2e/yr) – Reforesting, halting deforestation – CO2 sequestration in soils through changing agricultural practices• Behavioral change (~4 GtCO2e/yr) 1. CO2 Reduction opportunities by 2030 from Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy, McKinsey & Company, 2009.
    12. 12. CCS Meets National and International Climate Goals• President Obama: By 2050, 83% reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels• IEA: “application of CCS… represents potentially the most important new technology option for reducing direct emissions in industry.” Source: IEA. Energy Technology Perspectives 2010
    13. 13. Advanced Clean Coal R&D Future Plants Existing Coal Plants CCS Plus…..CCS Net Efficiencies > 45%Improve efficiencies Near-zero greenhouse gasesMinimize criteria pollutants Near-zero criteria pollutantsMinimize water usage Near-zero water usageMinimize greenhouse gases Polygeneration (Power +<$40/tonne CO2 Captured Chemicals + EOR) <$10/tonne CO2 Captured Technology Bridge to Clean Coal Pressurized Oxy-combustion Advanced H2 Turbines Membrane Oxy-combustion Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell Chemical Looping Combustion Advanced Materials Supercritical CO2 Cycle Advanced Sensors and Controls Direct Power Extraction Advanced IGCC
    14. 14. Innovation and Technology• Advanced Energy Systems – Advanced combustion systems – Gasification systems – Hydrogen turbines• Advanced Carbon Capture Kemper IGCC Project – Post-combustion capture – Pre-combustion capture – Oxy-combustion• Carbon Storage• Crosscutting R&D – Plant optimization – Coal utilization – Energy analyses Capture Facility at Plant Barry, AL
    15. 15. Integrated Fossil Energy Solutions Advanced Combustion Advanced Energy  Pressurized  Gasification Systems  O2 membrane  Turbines  Chemical looping  Supercritical CO2  USC Materials  Direct Power Extraction Efficiencies > 45% i Capital Cost by 50% 5 MWE Oxycombustion Pilot $10 - $40/tonne CO2 Captured Advanced Turbines Near-zero GHGsAdvanced CO2 Capture and Near-zero criteria pollutants CO2 Storage Compression Near-zero water usage  Solvents  Carbon Utilization (EOR)  Sorbents  Infrastructure (RCSPs)  Membranes  Geological Storage  Hybrid  Monitoring, Verification  Process and Accounting Intensification  Cryogenic Capture
    16. 16. Carbon Capture Key TechnologiesTechnology Areas Solvents Post–Combustion Capture Sorbents Pre-Combustion Capture Membranes CO2 Compression
    17. 17. Post-Combustion Research Focus Research Focus • Low-Cost, Non-Corrosive Solvents with High CO2 Loading Capacity, Improved Reaction Kinetics, Low Regeneration Energy, and Degradation Resistance • Process Intensification/Heat integration Solvents • High Performance Functionalized Solvents • Catalyzed Absorption • Phase-Change Solvents • Hybrid Systems • Low-Cost Base Materials, Thermal and Chemical Stability, Low Attrition Rates, Low Heat Capacity, High CO2 Adsorption Capacity and High CO2 Selectivity • Process Intensification/Heat integration Sorbents • Novel Processes Equipment and Configurations • Structured Solid Adsorbents (e.g., MOFs) • Hybrid Systems • Enhanced PSA/TSA • Low-Cost, Durable Membranes with Improved Permeance, Selectivity, Thermal and Physical Stability, and Tolerance to Flue Gas ContaminantsMembranes • Hybrid systems • Novel Process Conditions • Nano-materials • 2nd Generation Technology • Transformational Technology
    18. 18. Pre-Combustion Research Focus • Advanced Regeneration Process to Produce a High-Pressure CO2 Stream • Increased Selectivity for Maximal H2 Recovery Solvents • High temperature operation to maintain warm syngas • Dual Swing Absorption/Regeneration Cycles • Hybrid Systems • Cyclic PSA Producing High-Pressure H2 and CO2 • WGS/CO2 Separation Process intensification for High Sorbents Efficiency Impact • Hybrid Systems • Membrane Materials: High-Temperature Polymer, Dual- Phase Carbonate-Ceramic, Pd, and others • Silica Molecular Sieve • Gas/Liquid Contactor • WGS/CO2 Separation Process intensification for HighMembranes Efficiency Impact • High Density and Pressure Nano-Scale Membranes • High-temperature/high-pressure seals • Process Intensification • Hybrid Systems • 2nd Generation Technology • Transformational Technology
    19. 19. Fossil Energy R&D Reduces CO2Capture Costs by more than 80% Today’s Technology 2nd Generation Systems Transformational Systems EOR Price Ranges Adapted From: Chaparral Energy "US CO2 & CO2 EOR Developments" Panel Discussion at CO2 Carbon Management Workshop December 06, 2011. Today (2013) oil price between $85 - 102/bbl. 2035 oil price $145/bbl.
    20. 20. Carbon Storage Program Goals Develop Technology Options That...• Deliver technologies & best practices that provide Geologic Carbon Storage with: – 99% storage permanence >1,000 years – Estimate capacity in reservoirs – Improve storage efficiency – Validation of Formation Classes• Supporting Activities – Core R&D Projects – Infrastructure Development – International R&D Collaboration at Field Projects
    21. 21. U.S. 2012 Carbon Storage Atlas Hundreds of Years of Potential Storage Unmineable Coal Saline Formations 56  114 billion metric 2,102  20,043 billion tons CO2 storage metric tons CO2 storage Oil and Gas Reservoirs 226 billion metric tons CO2 storageSource: United States 2012 Carbon Utilization
    22. 22. Major U.S. Demonstrations Using Existing Infrastructure, Creating New Markets CCPI Archer Daniels Midland FutureGen 2.0 CO2 Capture from Ethanol PlantLarge-Scale Testing of Oxy-Combustion w/ CO2 Capture ICCS Area 1 CO2 Stored in Saline Reservoir & Sequestration in Saline Formation FutureGen 2.0 $208M Total; $141M DOE ~$1.3B Total; ~$1.0B DOE “Learning by doing”  scaling up first-generation SALINE – ~1 M TPY 2013 start SALINE – 1.3M TPY 2016 start technologies  Evidence of CCS w/EOR opportunities  viable business caseSummit TX Clean Energy  Validate CCS MVA best practices Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture However . . . ~$1.7B Total; $450M DOE EOR – 3M TPY 2014 start • First-generation capture technologies  energy penalty ~30% and > $100 / tonne CO2 captured Southern Company Kemper County IGCC Project Hydrogen Energy • Requires government subsidies $$$ + polygeneration IGCC-Transport Gasifier w/Carbon Capture California (power + chemicals) + EOR ~$2.67B Total; $270M DOECommercial Demo of Advanced EOR – 3 M TPY 2014 start IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$4B Total; $408M DOE EOR – 3M TPY 2018 start NRG Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Leucadia Energy W.A. Parish Generating Station CO2 Capture from Methanol Plant Post Combustion CO2 Capture CO2 Capture from Steam Methane Reformers EOR in Eastern TX Oilfields EOR in Eastern TX Oilfields $339M Total; $167M DOE $431M – Total, $284M – DOE $436M - Total, $261M – DOE EOR – 1.4M TPY 2014 start EOR – 1M TPY 2013 start EOR – 4.5 M TPY 2015 start
    23. 23. Utilization Could be a Key Driver For CCS• CCS is an essential part of the long-term global solution to climate change, but it requires an accelerated effort• CCS has no market driver to catalyze an industry – Regulations that place a value on CO2 emissions are unlikely anytime soon – First-generation technologies are too costly: >$100 / tonne CO2 captured and hCOE by >80 percent – Very challenging to incentivize CCS demos and jumpstart CCS industry• U.S. Department of Energy / Office of Fossil Energy research will greatly reduce CCS cost, but incentives are required for deployment – Absent CO2 emission value, cost per tonne CO2 will approach levels that catalyze EOR• Focusing more closely on EOR will drive technology development to commercialization – EOR is a high-value, high-volume use of CO2 – EOR could potentially utilize CO2 from 60 GW of power plants – EOR will catalyze CCS technologies while providing economic drivers for commercial projects
    24. 24. CO2 Conversion for Utilization CO2 Industrial Waste Heat H2 Catalyst Solar-Thermal H2O Wind-Electric Formic Acid Formaldehyde Methanol Methane High Throughput First Ever Unprecedented Outperforms Computation Visible Light Electro-Catalytic CommercialAccelerates Design CO2 Catalysts Efficiency Catalysts CuGaxFe1-xO2 CdSe/TiO2 & Au/ZnO Au25 Clusters Nano-Cu/ZnO Delafossites Heterostructures
    25. 25. Natural Gas Hydrates Program & Research at NETL Climate, Energy, and Safety - R&D for the Future • Natural gas hydrate is an enormous global storehouse of organic carbon • Estimates of carbon trapped in NGH exceeds that of known coal, oil and gas resources combined Predict natural gas hydrateIgnik Sikumi Hydrate behavior in porous media BP-DOE- Mallik Global Gas Hydrate R&D USGS ‘07 Well –Test of CO2 Evaluate potential future CH4 ’98, ’02, ’07, ‘08 UBGH1 ’07Sequestration & CH4 production & CO2 storage Major field programs last 15 years UBGH2 ‘11 Production CP-DOE-USGS ‘11 MITI ’99, ’04, ‘08, ‘1 0 ODP Leg 204 Qinghai ’02 IODP Province X311 ‘05 ‘10 GM CO2:CH4 exchange GOM JIP: Chevron-DOE Leg I ’05 GS1 GOM JIP: Chevron-DOE Leg 2 ’09 ‘07 Shell (Malay sia) ‘05 DGH (India)-USGS NGHP-01 ‘06 Characterize, predict, ide ntify, and understand areas with significant gas Microbiology hydrate occurrences P.C. J. Geology Presley P.C. W. Geochemistry Hong CH4 is >25x’s more potent a GHG than CO2 Volume of clean, natural gas trapped in NGH could offer significant energy resource
    26. 26. For More Information Anthony Cugini412-386-6023 –or– 304-285-4684 anthony.cugini@netl.doe.gov Office of Fossil Energy www.fe.doe.gov National Energy Technology Laboratory NETL www.netl.doe.gov @NETL_News
    27. 27. CCS/CCUS: GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIESAND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONSBrad PageChief Executive OfficerGlobal CCS Institute 27
    28. 28. CCS/CCUS:GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONSBRAD PAGE – CEOSecond Annual North American Forum, Washington, DC5 February 2013
    29. 29. GLOBALLY CONNECTED MEMBERSHIP72 134 75 3 5 72 29
    30. 30. KEYMESSAGE ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO ENSURE CCS CAN PLAY A VITAL [1 [ ROLE IN TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE Energy-related CO2 emission reductions by technology SOURCE: IEA NOTE: Percentages represent share of cumulative emissions reductions to 2050. Percentages in brackets represent share of emissions reductions in the year 2050. 30
    31. 31. KEYMESSAGE CCS IS ALREADY CONTRIBUTING, [2 [ BUT PROGRESS MUST BE ACCELERATED Volume of CO2 potentially stored by large-scale integrated projects 31
    32. 32. KEYMESSAGE CCS IS ALREADY CONTRIBUTING, [2 [ BUT PROGRESS MUST BE ACCELERATED Volume of CO2 potentially stored by large-scale integrated projects 32
    33. 33. KEYMESSAGE CCS IS ALREADY CONTRIBUTING, [2 [ BUT PROGRESS MUST BE ACCELERATED Volume of CO2 potentially stored by projects is decreasing 33
    34. 34. KEYMESSAGE STEADY PROGRESS BUT [3 [ IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS Large-scale integrated projects by asset lifecycle and year 34
    35. 35. KEYMESSAGE STEADY PROGRESS BUT [3 [ IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS North America large-scale integrated projects by asset lifecycle and year 35
    36. 36. KEYMESSAGE STEADY PROGRESS BUT [3 [ IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS Volume of CO2 potentially stored by primary storage type and region Note: Data reflects January 2013 LSIP update 36
    37. 37. CCUS BENEFITS Enables CCS technology improvement and cost reduction. Improves business case for demonstration and early mover projects through CO2 revenue. Helps gain public and policymaker acceptance. Builds and sustains a skilled CCS workforce. Supports CO2 transportation network development where EOR is an option.
    38. 38. CCUS CHALLENGES CO2-EOR is geographically and capacity limited. CO2 revenue alone will not bridge gap for high capture cost scenarios. Gaps exists between geologic storage permitting and CO2-EOR regimes.
    39. 39. KEYMESSAGE ENCOURAGING POLICY SUPPORT [4 [ BUT MORE REQUIRED  Historically strong support for CCS research and demonstration in North America.  GHG performance standards that recognize CCS importance.  Provincial and state programs to facilitate and incentivise CCS  New initiatives? 39
    40. 40. KEYMESSAGE BARRIERS MUST BE OVERCOME [5 [ TO REALIZE THE BENEFITS OF CCS Costs of CO2 avoided 40
    41. 41. KEYMESSAGE REDUCING THE COST OF TECHNOLOGY THROUGH [6 [ DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IS VITAL Boundary Dam, CanadaQuest, Canada TCM, Norway 41 Plant Barry, US
    42. 42. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISION MAKERS Climate change legislation must not be delayed. In order to achieve emission reductions in the most efficient and effective way, CCS must not be disadvantaged. Funding for CCS demonstration projects should be accelerated and incentives increased. Expertise and learning must be shared. 42
    43. 43. THE GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS: 2012  Released 10 October 2012.  Comprehensive coverage on the state of CCS projects and technologies.  Progress outlined since 2011.  Challenges and recommendations for moving forward.  Status of CCS Projects now revised in January 2013 update. 43
    44. 44. GLOBALCCSINSTITUTE.COM
    45. 45. NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRYROUNDTABLELessons Learned from Early CCS/CCUS Demonstration andDeployment Efforts in North America and Paths Forward 45
    46. 46. Discussion Topics• What are the top two lessons you learned from the early deployment efforts in CCS/CCUS that you can take forward to subsequent projects?• How has the landscape for CCS/CCUS in North America changed since the start of the early demonstrations? Given the current landscape, how would you approach a CCS/CCUS project development today—if at all?• What in your view have been and continue to be the principal barriers impeding industry investment in and deployment of CCS/CCUS along the value chain?• How do you see the availability of low cost natural gas in North America impacting CCS and CCUS, especially for CO2-EOR projects?• What do you see going forward would be needed for making the CCS/CCUS business case in North America?• During this past year some in the U.S. Congress have suggested using a carbon tax as mechanism for putting a price on carbon and reducing CO2 emissions. Others in the U.S. Congress have been very opposed to a carbon tax but have been supportive of a carbon cap and trade approach. What are your thoughts on this subject?
    47. 47. LEGAL AND REGULATORYROUNDTABLE:Using Legal and Regulatory Frameworks to Advance CCUSTechnology Development and Deployment in North America 47
    48. 48. Discussion Topics• It has been suggested that for CO2-EOR to qualify as storage, it should be subject to regulatory standards for MMV and long-term storage equivalent to those applicable to other types of CO2 storage. Do you agree or disagree, and why? – If you agree, how would you define equivalent? – If you disagree, what might be an appropriate approach for CO2-EOR?
    49. 49. Discussion Topics• CO2-EOR operations may differ from a dedicated source to sink storage model in a number of ways including: – Common pipelines where co-mingled streams of A- CO2 and N-CO2 lose their identity – CO2 recycling and reuse – The potential use of geologic reservoirs as buffers for EOR demand. How can a legal and regulatory framework accommodate these differences?
    50. 50. Discussion Topics• What additional legal and regulatory policies and/or incentives can be pursued to help more demonstration and early mover projects get underway in the near-term and ultimately lead to large scale CCS deployment?
    51. 51. Discussion Topics• Under the European Emission Trading System Directive, each component of the CCS chain (capture, transport and storage) is separately permitted and an obligation to surrender allowances does not arise for emissions verified as captured and transported for permanent storage to a facility permitted in accordance with the CCS Directive. How should CCS and emission compliance requirements be handled in Canada and the United States?
    52. 52. Contact Information http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/david.hill@rrc.state.tx.us 512 463 3011
    53. 53. Sources of CO2 and Users WW & PERMIAN BASIN CO2 EOR PRODUCTION* 1986 - 2010 300 Permian Basin Worldwide CO2 EOR PRODUCTION - 250 200 kbopd 150 100 50 0 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010* Ref: O&GJ Biennial EOR Editions & UTPB Petr Industry Alliance YEAR
    54. 54. CO2 EOR Sources
    55. 55. SACROC – Eastern Edge of Permian Basin Scurry Area Canyon Reef Operators Committee (SACROC) unitized oil field • Ongoing CO2 injection since 1972 • Combined enhanced oil recovery (EOR) with CO2 sequestration • Depth to Pennsylvanian- Permian reservoir ~6,500 ft • Approximately 3900 miles of CO2 pipelines (Dooley et al)
    56. 56. SACROC AREA WATER QUALITY36 of 60 wells completed in both Ogallala and Dockum Santa Rosa water-bearing units; 17 wells inside and 19 wells outside SACROC; highest data
    57. 57. Facilities and Water Wells Year Drilling Active Injection Water Well Permits Wells Wells Complaints* 2002 11,434 246,000 30,500 69 2003 14,654 238,000 30,700 42 2004 16,912 242,000 30,900 44 2005 19,548 246,000 31,300 38 2006 22,328 249,000 30,600 61 2007 23,916 250,000 30,600 42 2008 28,786 263,000 30,600 48 2009 15,917 274,000 30,800 47 2010 22,535 281,000 31,400 43 2011 28,300 281,000 31,500 83* The majority of these complaints are drought related. Many others involve onetime sampling events for oil and gas constituents, where lab data show no impact.About two wells per year are confirmed to be attributable to Oil & Gas activities.
    58. 58. Contact Information http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/david.hill@rrc.state.tx.us 512 463 3011
    59. 59. TECHNOLOGY ROUNDTABLE:Bringing Down the Cost of CO2 Capture, ROI in EORApplications, and Size of Recoverable Resource 59
    60. 60. Discussion Topics• What is on the horizon, and how far out is that horizon, for dramatically reducing the cost of CO2 capture? To what extent can novel capture systems be used to offset carbon emissions to meet regulations?• What other out-of-the-box thinking on reducing capture cost should we be contemplating?• Given the costs, benefits, uncertainties and risks, what potential returns on investment for CO2- EOR is conducive to a business case? What would the cost of captured anthropogenic CO2 have to be for industry to make use of it for CO2-EOR (along with the permanent storage of the CO2) and how would the cost relate to world oil prices?• In terms of risk/reward, what do you see as the potential for recoverable resources in North America and the world realistically in the next 5 years? 10 years? To what extent is this potential sustainable as a path to CCS?• What do you see as the key issues and priorities that must be addressed?• During this past year, some in the U.S. Congress have suggested using a carbon tax as mechanism for putting a price on carbon and reducing CO2 emissions. Others in the U.S. Congress have been very opposed to a carbon tax but have been supportive of a carbon cap and trade approach. What are your thoughts on this subject?
    61. 61. Technology and Scale• CCS technology is proven and is technologically feasible.• Demonstration at commercial scale is critical to define risks, optimize process and achieve cost reduction to support commercial contracting• The CCS technology requires both policy direction and financial support to be demonstrated at commercial scale• CCS could be competitive on a level playing field in a free market• EOR will help close the gap on financing particularly on early move projects.• Other products may be helpful depending on markets• Stronger Governmental support is required
    62. 62. Comparative Economics CoE Low Carbon technologies – New PP over next 5 years Up to 45€€ / MWh cents/kWh300 EUROPE 300250 250 Reference case200 200150 150 Low case CSP Tower100 with storage 100 86 79 50 (82 for Ref 50 CCS Oxy) 0 0 Hardcoal w Gas CCPP Nuclear Hydro Geo- Wind Wind Solar Solar PV CCS Post w CCS thermal Onshore Offshore Thermal 2017 2017 Source : Alstom analysis 2012. CCS w Post amine 2017 costs, including on shore T&S & CO2 price (Flue Gas Recirculation for CCS Gas CC) CoE do not include “externalities” of Intermittent power (Back-up cost, balancing cost, grid enhancement if required) Under realistic assumptions and with a conservative variation range, CCS is already in the “mix” of low carbon alternatives
    63. 63. CO2 Utilization with Enhanced Oil Recovery:What is the Size of the Prize? Prepared for: Second Annual CCS/CCUS Opportunities and Strategic Directions Forum Technology Roundtable: Bringing Down the Cost of CO2 Capture, ROI in EOR Applications, and Size of Recoverable Resource Sponsored by: Global CCS Institute Prepared By: Vello A. Kuuskraa w/ Steve Melzer vkuuskraa@adv-res.com President ADVANCED RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Arlington, VA USA Canadian Embassy ▪ Washington D.C. ▪ 5 February 2013
    64. 64. The “Size of the Prize?”Large volumes of oil remain “stranded” in U.S. reservoirs after traditional recovery. 400 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL 140 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL IN IN MAIN PAY ZONES. RESIDUAL OIL ZONES (ROZs). Original Oil In-Place: 600 B Barrels Oil In-Place: 140 B Barrels* “Stranded” Oil In-Place: 396 B Barrels ROZ “Fairways” Target for EOR 100 Billion Barrels 396 Billion Barrels 40 Billion Cumulative Production Barrels 182 Billion Barrels Below Oil Fields Proved Reserves 22 Billion Barrels Source: Advanced Resources Int’l. (2011); Melzer Consulting (2012) *Within ROZ “Fairways” of the Permian Basin and below oil fields in 3 U.S. basins 64
    65. 65. The “Size of the Prize”“Next Generation” vs. “State of the Art” CO2-EOR Technology Economic Oil Demand for CO2 Resource Area Recovery (BBbls)* (Billion Metric Tons) SOA Next Gen. SOA Next Gen. More efficient recovery, “Lower 24 60 7 17 48” oil fields Alaska/Offshore 3 7 1 3 Residual Oil Zone - 13 - 5 (below oil fields) Residual Oil Zone “Fairways” - 20 - 8 (preliminary) Total 27 100 8 33 *At $85 per barrel and $40 per metric ton, CO2 market price with 20 % rate of return (before tax). Source: Advanced Resources International, Inc. (2011)65
    66. 66. “Next Generation” CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Use of more efficient CO2-EOR technologies and extension ofthese technologies to new oil resources and settings constitutes“next generation” CO2 enhanced oil recovery: 1. Scientifically-based advances in CO2-EOR technology, 2. Integrating CO2 capture with CO2 utilization by CO2-EOR, 3. Application of CO2-EOR to residual oil zones (ROZs), and 4. Deployment of CO2-EOR in offshore oil fields.66
    67. 67. Permian Basin ROZ “Fairways” NM TX Palo Duro Basin Melzer and ARIestimate that up to100 million barrelsof OIP exist in the Theorized U. Permian Hydrodynamic FairwaysROZ “Fairways” ofthe Permian Basin. Midland Boundary of Northwest Basin Northwest Shelf San Shelf Andres Platform Area Carbonate Play Permian Basin Central Basin Platform Outline Source: Modified from Melzer Consulting (2010) JAF2012_092.PPT 67
    68. 68. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology Two publically available reports, prepared by Advanced Resources Int’l and Melzer Consulting for U.S. DOE/NETL, provide the analytical foundation for “next generation” CO2-EOR technology.68
    69. 69. Summary Observations “Next generation” CO2 enhanced oil recovery deserves to be a major part of a worldwide carbon management strategy: • CO2 enhanced oil recovery is a viable, growing enterprise, • The oil produced is low carbon energy, • The “size of the prize” is large, and • CO2-EOR can provide a market-driven option for accelerating CO2 capture. Acknowledgements. The analytic foundation for these findings was sponsored by theU.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.69
    70. 70. Office Locations Washington, DC 4501 Fairfax Drive, Suite 910 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: (703) 528-8420 Advanced Fax: (703) 528-0439 Resources Houston, Texas International 11931 Wickchester Ln., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77043-4574 www.adv-res.com Phone: (281) 558-6569 Fax: (281) 558-920270
    71. 71. INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTSROUNDTABLE:Perspectives in Enabling/Incentivizing Industry to MoveForward with CCS/CCUS 71
    72. 72. Discussion Topics• What global opportunities do you see for the deployment of CCS, especially in locations that do not currently have legislative or regulatory requirements to do so?• What do you consider to be some of the principal barriers, political and otherwise, impeding the deployment of CCS?• What actions can Governments take to overcome these barriers to sustainable CCS deployment?• What do you see as key priority issues and actions needed to move CCS/CCUS forward so that it can be part of a sustainable clean energy portfolio?• During this past year, some in the U.S. Congress have suggested using a carbon tax as mechanism for putting a price on carbon and reducing CO2 emissions. Others in the U.S. Congress have been very opposed to a carbon tax, but have been supportive of a carbon cap and trade approach. What are your thoughts on this subject?
    73. 73. www.globalccsinstitute.com

    ×