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 Vietnam.

1. Carbon Capture & Storage in Vietnam
C b C t & St i Vi t
Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan – Vietnam Institute of Energy
Nguyen Hong Minh, Tran Chau Giang, Nguyen Anh Duc –
Vietnam Petroleum Institute
ADB 6th Asia Clean Energy Forum, 22 June 2011
1

2. Power Sector Overview
Installed capacity mix by fuel types Install capacity in 2030
SPP, Renewable
Diesel 3.2% 5%
Import 2.5%
4.7% 3% 15%
8% Hydro and pump storage
Hydropower
yd opo e
34.8% 13% Coal
Gas Turbine, CCGT Oil+ Gas
31.4%
SHPP+ RE
56%
Nuclear
Gas thermal Import
2.2%
Oil thermal Coal thermal
2.7% 18.5%
9000
By the end of 2010 8000
Coal TPPs
1. Install capacity : 21.297 MW Oil/Gas TPPs
7000 Hydropower
2. Available capacity: 19.713 MW
6000
5000
MW
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

3. Power Sector projection to 2030
800000
QH§ 7
700000 QH§ 6
600000 13,4%
500000
12,0%
G h
W
400000
300000 2,2%
200000
100000
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2011‐ 2016‐ 2021‐ 2026‐
2015 2020 2025 2030
High
16.0 11.6 9.2 8.4%
case
Base
Base
14.1 11.3 8.2 7.4%
case

4. Is there a potential for CCS in Vietnam?
Is there a potential for CCS in Vietnam?
Huge emissions sources in next 20‐30 years: Coal‐fired
Huge emissions sources in next 20 30 years: Coal fired
power plants, Gas processing plants…
Several storage areas: Depleting gas and oil fields,
CBM sites, EOR
C i O
Several barriers to be addressed: Regulatory,
economic and financial, environment, and social
barriers

5. Estimate of CO2 emissions from sectors in Vietnam
(Unit: 103 tons CO2)
Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Industry (w/t power) 24755 35598 48127 64336 70631 91524
Agriculture
Agriculture 1386 1479 1758 2084 2437 2914
Transport 18969 30884 43839 62594 86311 124370
Commerce and service 4354 6002 8067 9832 12141 14597
Residential 4861 5767 6414 7823 9285 9943
Total (w/t power plants) 75852 119522 171312 220118 275565 388832
Projected CO2 Emissions from power plants
500000
CO2 emission from power
400000
p
plants in 2030
300000
1%
8%
200000
Gas turbine
100000 Oil fired
Oil fi d
Coal fired
0 91%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
CO2 59463 107162 201491 297237 443802

6. Select a short list of emission
sources
• A survey has been carried out including more 180
A survey has been carried out including more 180
emissions entities
• Established weighting and scoring systems to select
g g g y
most suitable candidates for CCS
– MUST: in operation for at least another 20 years; Source
variability
– WANTS: CO2 concentration; Presence of SOx, NOx;
Amount of CO2; startup date; distance from attractive
Amount of CO2; startup date; distance from attractive
storage location; Existing infrastructure; Space availability;
Willingness partner;

7. Short list
of
emission
sources
in 2011
Short list
1 GPP, 1.5 b.m3/y
4 Coal‐fired,
subcritical
9 Combined Cycle GT
9 Combined Cycle GT
1 Rolling steel

8. Short list of
emission
sources in 2015
Short list
Short list
6 GPP, total capacity
≈10 b.m3/y
7 Coal‐fired
7 Coal fired (1
subcritical, 6 USC)
2 Combined Cycle GT

9. Identify CO2 storage capacity
9 identified Cenozoic
basins/group of basins
/g p
1. Song Hong basin
Song Hong Basin 2. Phu Khanh basin
3.
3 Cuu Long basin
C L b i
Hoang Sa
4. Nam Con Son basin
Group of Basins
5. Phu Quoc basin
6. Malay‐ Tho Chu basin
Bể Phú Khánh
7. Tu Chinh‐ Vung May group of
basins
Bể Cửu Long
Bể
8. Hoang Sa group of basins
Phú Quốc 9. Truong Sa group of basins
Truong Sa‐
Truong Sa
Tu Chinh Vung May
Group of Basins

10. Geological plays in Cenozoic Basins
Potential storage site: only deep reservoirs (t, p)
Average geothermal gradient: 30oC/km
Pressure: 10.5 Mpa/km
Depth cut‐off: at least 1000m below MSL
Assumptions: 4% of reservoir pore volume can be filled with CO2
3% of reservoir volume is in a trap
underground CO2 density: 700kg/m3
Storage capacity of the geological plays in Cenozoic basins
Qplay = Vp.ηst.ρCO2
Vp : Total pore volume of the geological play below 1000m (km3)
ηst. : Storage efficiency, i.e. fraction of the pore volume that can be filled with
CO2 (2; 6; 4% for closed trap; open traps; unknown traps)
CO2 (2 6 4% f l d k )
ρCO2 : CO2 density at initial reservoir conditions (kg/m3) applied as 700kg/m3
by assuming a normal hydrostatic pressure (10.5 MPa/km) and
g
geothermal gradients (30oC/km)
g ( / )
Qplay : Storage capacity of entire play (Mt CO2)

11. Geological plays in Cenozoic Basins

12. CO2 storage in coal mines
1. Quang Ninh coal mines: 7 BMT;
2.
2 Red River Delta coal basin: prospective
210 BMT, mainly ~ 350 to 1,500m;
3. Coal mines in Thai Nguyen province:
over 600 MMT
MMT;
4. Na Duong coal mine in Lang Son
province: 95 MMT
5. Nong Son coal mine in Quang Nam
province ~600 MMT (Source: Mike Friederich,
2006)
6. UnexploredThanh Nghe Plain
7. Unexplored Cuulong Plain

13. CO2 storage in oil and gas fields
34 hydrocarbon fields are on production and planning for production
in near future offshore Vietnam
Storage potential of oil and gas fields in Vietnam
St t ti l f il d fi ld i Vi t
VUoil = Voil(st)x Bo/1000
VUgas = Vgas(st)x 1/GEF
QCO2 = (V + V )x ρ
= (VUoil + VUgas)x ρCO2
Vu : Underground volume of oil or gas (milliard m3)
Voil(st) : Recoverable volume of oil at standard conditions (20oC and 0 1 Mpa)
: Recoverable volume of oil at standard conditions (20oC and 0.1 Mpa)
(milliard sm3)
Vgas(st) : Recoverable volume of gas at standard conditions (milliard sm3)
Bo : Oil formation volume factor
: Oil formation volume factor
GEF : Gas expansion factor
ρCO2 : CO2 density at initial reservoir conditions (kg/m3) applied as 700kg/m3
g y p ( / ) g
assuming a normal hydrostatic pressure (10.5 MPa/km) and geothermal
gradients (30oC/km)
QCO2 : Total CO2 storage capacity (Mt)

14. CO2 storage capacity in oil and gas fields
Offshore
No.
No Oil and Condensate Gas TOTAL
Fields
Recoverable Storage Recoverable Storage Storage
Name (106 m3) Capacity FVF (109 m3) Capacity GEF Capacity
(
(MtCO2) (
(MtCO2) (
(MtCO2)
1 CL01 76 58,52 1,1 3,5 10,65 230 69,17
2 CL02 30 23,1 1,1 1 2,75 255 23,10
3 CL03 13 10,01 1,1 22 57,04 270 67,05
4 CL04 15 11,55
11 55 1,1
11 11,55
11 55
5 CL05 37 28,49 1,1 7 19,60 250 48,09
6 CL06 2 1,54 1,1 2 5,60 250
7 CL07 16 12,32 1,1 4 11,20 250 23,52
8 CL08 1,23 0,9471 1,1 0,2 0,56 250
9 CL09 3 2,31 1,1 0,32 0,90 250
10 CL10 10 7,7 1,1 2 5,60 250
11 CL11 14 24,5 2,5 6,3 17,64 250 42,14
12 CL12 10 10,85 1,55 1,2 3,36 250 10,85
13 CL13 6 5,46 1,3
14 CL14 3 2,73 1,3 0,4 1,12 250
15 CL15 3 2,73
, 1,3
,
16 CL16 240 268,8 1,6 29 88,26 230 357,06
17 CL17 26 29,12 1,6 1,5 4,57 230 29,12
18 CL18 12 10,92 1,3 2 6,09 230 10,92

15. CO2 storage capacity in oil and gas fields
No. Offshore Fields
Offshore Fields Oil and Condensate
Oil and Condensate Gas TOTAL
Recoverable Storage Recoverable Storage Storage
Name (106 m3) Capacity FVF (109 m3) Capacity GEF Capacity
(MtCO2) (MtCO2) (MtCO2)
19 ML01 3,5 3,185 1,3 17 51,74 230 51,74
20 ML02 1 0,91 1,3 0,01 0,03 230
21 ML03 3 2,73 1,3 3,5 10,65 230 10,65
22 ML04 0,4
04 1,22
1 22 230
23 ML05 4 3,64 1,3 16 48,70 230 48,70
24 NCS01 5 4,55 1,3 1 3,04 230
25 NCS02 1 0,91 1,3 0,23 0,70 230
26 NCS03 11 10,01 1,3 3 7,95 264 10,01
27 NCS04 15,3 46,57 230 46,57
28 ML06 3 2,94 1,4 1 3,04 230
29 NCS05 2 1,82
1 82 1,3
13 46 107,33
107 33 300 107,33
107 33
30 NCS06 0,1 0,091 1,3 12 28,00 300 28,00
31 NCS09 3,5 3,185 1,3 25 74,47 235 74,47
32 NCS07 7 6,37 1,3 21 49,00 300 55,37
33 NCS08 1 0,91 1,3 13 30,33 300 31,24
34 SH01 0,72 2,02 300
TOTAL 1.156,65

16. Ranking of CO2 storage site in oil and gas fields
Musts
Capacity: >10 megatonnes storage capacity
Injectivity: > 100 tonnes/day/well
I j ti it 100 t /d / ll
Confinement: > 20 feet thick seal with no active faults
Depth:> 3000 ft
Wants
W t Scores
S
Capacity: CO2 storage 21 = full score down to 50 Mt; linear; linear to 10 Mt
Injectivity: Created CO2 storage/day/well 11; linear between high & low
Injectivity: # existing production wells
I j ti it # i ti d ti ll 11; linear between high & low
11 li b t hi h & l
Confinement: seal thickness 17 = full score to 100 ft., linear between 100 & 20 ft.
Confinement: # abandoned wells 4 = full score for zero abandoned wells
Contamination of other resources 4 = full score if no contamination by CO2
Economics: EOR or other $$ offset
E i EOR th $$ ff t 17 = EOR full score; other offset as assessed
17 EOR f ll th ff t d
Economics; Infrastructure 4 = full score for full useable infrastructure
Economics: Monitoring opportunity 4 = full score onshore, 0 if offshore
Avail. for commercial: Depletion date 5 if 2015, 0 if 2025, linear in between
Industry: Willing partner
I d t Willi t 5 as assessed
5 d
Total = 100

17. Ranking of CO2 storage site in oil and gas fields
Year of Injectivity (Well
Offshore
Offshore No.
No
No. First basis) Ranking
Fields wells
oil/gas Mt/day/well
1 CL01 2003 23 0,000357 1
2 CL02 2008 4 0,000411 6
3 CL03 2011 7
4 CL04 2013 11
5 CL05 1998 43 0,000127 2
6 CL07 1998 24 7,99E‐05 9
7 CL11 2008 3 0,000228 5
8 CL12 na 12
9 CL16 1986 200 0,00011 1
10 CL17 1994 35 6,73E‐05
, 8
11 CL18 2009 0 12
12 ML01 2003 33 2,49E‐05 na
13 ML03 2003 36 2,28E‐05 na
14 ML05 2008 32 2,57E 05
2,57E‐05 na
15 NCS03 1994 7 0,000117 10
16 NCS04 2012 na
17 NCS05 2002 5 0,001918 4
18 NCS06 2012 0 na
19 NCS09 2006 7 0,000274 3
20 NCS07 2013 na
21 NCS08 2013 na

18. Regulatory barriers
Existing policies not enough strong and lack of regulations for supporting and promotion for CCS
There are no regulation to define CO2 as the “waste”
h l d f h “ ”
Vietnam currently has no laws , no institution that specifically governs the CCS,
y , p yg ,
There are no regulation for land‐use and monitoring that long time enough for CCS
Several consultation meeting have been held and to be held in
the 26th week June;
A road map on regulatory framework to be finalized by end of
A road map on regulatory framework to be finalized by end of
JUNE 2011

19. Financing barriers
Incentive provided by the Vietnam Environmental
Incentive provided by the Vietnam Environmental
Protection Fund is not strong enough
Lending from Commercial Banks is limited and requires
g q
stringent financial conditions
CCS projects require relatively high investment capital,
p j q y g p
which cannot compete with traditional energy sources;
only feasible with financial assistance
Lack of financial policy mechanism and encouragement for
CCS project investment implementation in Vietnam
19

20. Economic barriers 400
300
200
• High cost of CCS Who
NPV (Mill.USD)
100
pay for INCREAMENTAL 0
15 20 36.5 40 45 50 60
NPV
-100
COST ?
COST ? -200
• How to balance income -300
from selling CO2: -400
Price CO2 (USD/T)
– Existing: 20 US$/ton
Existing: 20 US$/ton
NPV of a typical Coal‐Fired Power Plant in Vietnam with CCS
CO2 (about 1
as function of CO2 price (figure above) and as function of
UScent/kWh) CCS investment costs with CO2 price =20$/t (figure below)
– Incremental cost for CCS
(3‐5 UScent/kWh) 150
100
• Our simulations show
50
that 0
NPV(Mill.USD)
– CFPP without CCS is -50
1600 1700 1800 1850 1906 2300 2500
NPV
NPV = 318 Mill.USD, -100
– With CCS, NPV = ‐250 -150
Mill USD (CO 20 $/t)
Mill USD (CO2 = 20 $/t) -200
200
-250
-300
Capital Cost (USD/KW)

21. Society features in Vietnam
m Social barriers
• High community relationship;
• Strong influences of village conventions, customs and the elders ;
• Strong effect of informal information;
g ;
i
• Discreet attitude on new technologies;
• People are worried about impacts on land recovery, land‐using value,
health & lives;
• Influenced by local authorities.
• Most of people have not known anything about CCS and low‐carbon
technologies
• Some of them have heard about CCS but they do not know clearly
about this technology and its effect and application;
• Some people working in fields related to CCS think it is difficult to apply
CCS i Vi t
in Vietnam d t l k of policies, hi h i
due to lack f li i high investment & operation
t t ti
cost, environmental impacts, risks and low public understanding.

22. Enabling measures to address those barriers
Develop national policies and regulations, where they do not exist or exist but not enough strong to
support and promote CCS projects in VN
• CO2 could be classified as “waste”
• N d t d l d t il d
Need to develop detailed regulations for containment structures, and monitoring, measurement
l ti f t i t t t d it i t
and verification requirements.
• Conduct further training and capacity building, regulatory working group,
• At the time an actual CCS project is identified in Viet Nam, provide support to Viet Nam’s
p j ,p pp
regulatory authorities to develop appropriate regulations for such project, especially in the area of
measurement, monitoring and verification.
Incentives for CCS
• CCS requires price subsidies and support from other sources
• Reduced corporate income tax rates and exemptions, and reduced VAT for a CCS project
• Carbon prices or taxes
Provide clear and reliable information about CCS
Provide clear and reliable information about CCS
• Role in global emissions reduction;
• The costs and benefits of a proposed project for the local community.
• Provide information about the technology available.
Provide information about the technology available
• Information about pilot CCS projects in Vietnam and over the world.

23. For more information
o o e o at o
Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan
Institute of Energy
6 Ton That Tung street, Hanoi, Vietnam
Email: tuannguyen.icd@gmail.com
Tel: +84-4-3852 9310
Website:
W b it www.ievn.com.vn
i
Industrial Carbon capture process 240t/d at Phu My Fertilizer complex