The Global Status of CCS 2010 - Andrew Roden
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•478 views
A couple of Institute staff, Chris Short (chief economist) and Andrew Roden (head of project analysis & development), recently presented the findings of the Institute's 2010 Global Status of CCS Report at a number of breakfast events throughout Australia. The events were hosted by AECOM in Brisbane and Parsons Brinckerhoff in Sydney and Melbourne, in early and mid June.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (17)
Similar to The Global Status of CCS 2010 - Andrew Roden
Similar to The Global Status of CCS 2010 - Andrew Roden (20)
More from Global CCS Institute
More from Global CCS Institute (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Global Status of CCS 2010 - Andrew Roden
- 1. The Global Status of CCS: 2010 Andrew Roden – Head of Project Analysis and Development June 2011 WWW.GLOBALCCSINSTITUTE.COM
- 2. LARGE SCALE INTEGRATED PROJECTS (LSIPs) BY COUNTRY AND STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
- 4. LSIPs IN NORTH AMERICA
- 6. LSIPs: AMOUNT OF POTENTIALLY STORED CO 2 PER ANNUM BY REGION
- 7. LSIPs: POTENTIALLY STORED CO 2 PER ANNUM BY INDUSTRY SECTOR
- 8. LSIPs: POTENTIALLY STORED CO 2 PER ANNUM BY COUNTRY AND STORAGE TYPE
- 9. LSIPs WITH PIPELINES FOR TRANSPORT BY KNOWN PIPELINE LENGTH
- 10. LSIPs BY ASSET LIFECYCLE IN 2009 AND 2010
Editor's Notes
- This chart shows where the 77 LSIPs according to the Asset Lifecycle and by key region/country Explain – 10 in Identify stage undertaking early studies to test if there is a business opportunity – 28 in Evaluate … – 27 in Define … – 4 in Execute – list projects gorgon, So Co, Enhance, Occidental – 8 in Operation – all linked to the oil and gas sector Figure 26 (p. 62)
- The geographical distribution of LSIPs is presented here. North America accounts for 39 of the 77 LSIPs: 31 in the U.S. and 8 in Canada. Europe has 21 LSIPs. Australia has 6 LSIPs. China has 5 LSIPs. 2 LSIPS in the UAE and Korea. 1 LSIP for: New Zealand and Algeria. There are no LSIPS identified in key emitter countries like Japan, India and Russia. Figure 23 (p. 59)
- A few features of/comments on CCS activity in North America: (1) Government funding in this region is the most advanced (around US$9bn of allocated funds). (2) Capture projects in North America seek additional revenue from sale of CO2 for EOR to improve project commerciality. (3) Sale of CO 2 to third parties could enable the deployment of carbon capture technologies to new applications. (4) CO 2 -EOR systems have the potential to provide a knowledge base for broader demonstration of CO 2 storage projects. Figure 24 (p. 60)
- A few features of/comments on CCS activity in Europe: (1) CCS Projects appear to move at a slightly slower pace than in North America. This is due to: (i) the longer timeframes associated with the EU ’ s NER300 program; and (ii) uncertain economic conditions. (2) European projects face significant challenges in the use of potential onshore storage sites, which underscore the need to gain public endorsement for CCS projects. (3) Most advanced activity in Europe is in Norway (with 2 operational LSIPs), the UK and the Netherlands (with 11 LSIPs under development between the two). Figure 25 (p. 61)
- Another perspective other than project numbers – volume of CO 2 stored per annum Shows: Strong activity in USA (mostly in development) due to: (a) program delivery in US vs. EU; and (b) EOR as potential supporter. Top 6 countries account for 85% of activity Figure 27 (p. 62)
- Strong activity in power – again, where govt funds are being allocated (enhancing policy objective on power). [Already a series of projects operating predominantly in gas processing and substitute natural gas (Weyburn) or fertiliser production (Enid fertiliser/EOR).] Low representation of demonstration projects in key high emitting sectors including cement, iron and steel, pulp and paper. Figure 28 (p. 63)
- Storage types: USA – has a strong focus on EOR - provides immediate assistance to the demonstration of CCS in the following ways: characterised sites, knowledge of reservoir; additional revenue; time – no need to undertake exploration; Pipeline approvals; some community understanding of the process. Most other countries/regions do not have this advantage (except Canada and UAE). In these regions, geologic storage is predominantly being considered via deep saline formations and depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Figure 34 (p. 67)
- Transport solutions Almost 90% projects are looking at pipelines. Many demonstration projects are seeking to transport captured CO 2 and therefore they are considering storage solutions that are close at hand (under 100km); BUT, it also shows that just as many are seeking solutions further away too, which indicates that transport costs are not a serious challenge for projects at present. The majority of projects are also seeking to store CO 2 onshore (grey) rather than offshore (light blue). It should be noted that in some regions, offshore storage is attractive due to available data and infrastructure e.g. in the North Sea due where oil and gas activity is high. Figure 31 (p. 66)
- The next group of slides take into account large-scale integrated projects (or LSIPs). In 2010, 77 LSIPs were identified – up from 64 in 2009 (increase of 13 projects). Key message: Large number of projects are coalescing in advanced planning, but get to make construction decision (FID) soon. Number of Operational projects has remained the same (8 projects). Projects in Execute Stage have increased by 2. These two (2) projects have commenced construction: (i) the Southern Company Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle project in Mississippi, USA and (ii) the Gorgon CO 2 injection Project in Australia. Increase of projects moving to advanced planning stages (Define) [from 15 to 27, increase of 12 projects, 80% increase/nearly doubled] So projects are steadily progressing through the planning stages due to a range of factors such as: (i) government funding; and (ii) potential revenue from supplying CO 2 to oil producers for EOR in North America Figure 17 (p. 48)
- While CCS is being demonstrated, 3 important challenges have surfaced: Public engagement: Effective engagement with community by governments and projects is crucial, as public opposition has shown to delay, alter, or cancel CCS projects. Sharing information: Expanding the stock of knowledge as the CCS technology is demonstrated, and the rate of diffusion of this knowledge are important. Legal and regulatory development: some uncertainties around CCS could be reduced by an appropriate legal and regulatory framework. What needs to be done to address these 3 challenges: Collaborative decision making to create an effective project operating environment and to - establish trust with community; - communicate the case of CCS in balanced, fact-based manner; and - identify value proposition for local communities. Knowledge sharing: a coordinated national/international approach to sharing know-how, experience and lessons learnt from CCS demonstration projects 3. Appropriate framework for regulation: can provide commercial certainty, ensure effective stewardship of storage sites, and protect public health, safety and the environment. Specific CCS issues are being addressed: - long-term liability; - pore space ownership vis-a-vis competing subsurface use (particularly significant to the U.S.); and - CCS-ready – regulation to build new plants that are CCS-ready for future retrofit;