Download Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage – What, Why, Where, and Texas’s role

Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage – What, Why,
Where, and Texas’s role
Tim Dixon
CleanTX
21 January 2014
CO2 Capture and Storage
(CCS)
•
•
•
•
• Post Combustion
• Pre Combustion
• Oxy fuel
• Pipelines
• Ships
Capture
Oil and gas fields
Deep saline aquifers
Coal seams
Basalt/ Organic-rich
Shales
Transport
Storage
Geological storage of CO2
What do we need?
SEAL ROCK – nonporous, e.g. claystone
RESERVOIR ROCK –
porous, e.g. sandstone
Claystone
seal rock
Sandstone
reservoir rock
J.Kaldi. IEAGHG Summer School 2012
CO2 Storage Trapping Mechanisms
From IPCC SRCCS, 2005
CCS in scale
Source: DNV
Oil & Gas Reservoirs: EOR
with CO2 Storage
• Proven containment (seal
held oil & gas)
• Data rich (lots of wells,
seismic)
• Objective: produce more oil
(CO2 storage secondary, but
also occurs!)
Courtesy Kaldi, 2009
Why CCS ?
IPPC AR5 WG1 Climate Change
Science - Summary for Policy
Makers (Sep2013)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Warming is unequivocal …..”
“Each of the last 3 decades have been progressively warmer…”
“Ocean warming dominates increase in energy stored….”
“Over the last 2 decades polar ice sheets have been losing mass….”
“Rate of sea level rise larger than previous millennia…”
“Levels of CO2 increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000
years..”
“CO2 concentration increase by 40%.....”
“Ocean absorbed around 30% of emissions causing ocean
acidification….”
“Human influence on the climate is clear…”
Latest news on CO2
concentrations
Last time earths
atmosphere contained
415ppm CO2 was the
Pliocene era between five
million and three million
years ago.
25th April 2013 CO2 level was 399.72ppm
http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
The 450 Scenario illustrates what
the 2⁰C goal will require
Gt
World energy-related CO2 emissions by scenario
45
40
OECD
Non-OECD
28%
Current Policies
Scenario
35
71%
New Policies
Scenario
7 Gt
33%
30
15 Gt
65%
25
450 Scenario
20
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2035
Restricting the greenhouse-gas concentration to 450 ppm would limit temperature increase to
2⁰C, compared with 3.5⁰C in the New Policies Scenario & 6⁰C in the Current Policies Scenario
© OECD/IEA 2011
CCS is one part of a cost-effective emissions
reduction portfolio
© OECD/IEA 2013
IEA vision: 120 Gt of CO2 stored by 2050
Goal 1: 2020
Over 30 large projects in
operation in power and across a
range of industrial processes,
storing 50 MtCO2 per year.
© OECD/IEA 2013
Goal 2: 2030
Goal 3: 2050
Over 2 GtCO2 is stored per year.
CCS routinely used in power and
certain industrial applications.
Over 7 GtCO2 stored per year.
CCS routinely used in all
applicable power and industrial
applications.
CCS is ready for scale-up
• Inherent separations
commercial in many
applications
• Capture routes for power
being demonstrated
Capture technologies
are well understood but
expensive
© OECD/IEA 2013
• 6000km existing pipelines
• Existing technical
standards
• Transport by ship (albeit
in small quantities)
• Decades of research and
pilot projects
• Natural CO2 accumulations,
acid gas disposal, and EOR
• Existing large-scale projects
Transport is the most
technically mature step
in CCS
Storage demonstrated;
further large-scale
experience needed
Global CCS Update
Active
region
Very
Active
region
Active
region
Developing
Interest
R&D/
Pilots
RCSP Phase III: Development Phase
Large-Scale Geologic Tests
Core Sampling
Taken
Monitoring Well
Installed
5
Characterization Well
completed
Injection ongoing
Nov 2011
1
4
ü Injection Targets - minimum planned volumes
ü Two ongoing RCSP Injection Projects
3
Partnership
2
8
9
1
6
7
2
3
Injection Started
April 2009
Injection to begin
March 2012
Injection Ongoing
2012 Injection Scheduled
Injection Scheduled 2013-2015
Note: Some locations presented on map may
differ from final injection location
4
5
6
7
8
9
Geologic Province
Sweetgrass ArchDuperow Formation
Illinois BasinMGSC
Mt. Simon Sandstone
Michigan BasinMRCSP
St Peter SS or Niagaran Reef
Powder River BasinMuddy Formation
PCOR
Alberta BasinSulphur Point Formation
Interior Salt BasinTuscaloosa Formation
SECARB
Interior Salt BasinPaluxy Formation
Wasatch PlateauSWP
Navajo Sandstone
WESTCARB Regional Characterization
Big Sky
Storage Type
Saline
Saline
Saline/Oil
Oil Bearing
Saline
Oil/Saline
Saline
Saline
TBD
Major CCS Demonstration Projects
Major CCUS
Demonstration
Projects
1st Generation
Demonstrations
Project Locations & Cost Share
FutureGen 2.0
Large-Scale Testing of Oxy-Combustion w/ CO2
Capture & Sequestration in Saline Formation
~$1.3B Total; ~$1.0B DOE
SALINE – 1.3M TPY 2016 start
CCPI
ICCS Area 1
FutureGen 2.0
Archer Daniels Midland
CO2 Capture from Ethanol Plant
CO2 Stored in Saline Reservoir
$208M Total; $141M DOE
SALINE – ~1 M TPY 2013 start
Summit TX Clean Energy
Commercial Demo of Advanced
IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture
~$1.7B Total; $450M DOE
EOR – 3M TPY 2014 start
Southern Company
Kemper County IGCC Project
IGCC-Transport Gasifier
w/Carbon Capture
~$2.67B Total; $270M DOE
EOR – 3 M TPY 2014 start
HECA
Commercial Demo of Advanced
IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture
~$4B Totall; $408M DOE
EOR – 3M TPY 2018 start
NRG
W.A. Parish Generating Station
Post Combustion CO2 Capture
$339M Total; $167M DOE
EOR – 1.4M TPY 2014 start
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
CO2 Capture from Steam Methane Reformers
EOR in Eastern TX Oilfields
$431M – Total, $284M – DOE
EOR – 1M TPY 2013 start
Leucadia Energy
CO2 Capture from Methanol Plant
EOR in Eastern TX Oilfields
$436M - Total, $261M – DOE
EOR – 4.5 M TPY 2015 start
CCS and Renewable Energy
• Concentrated Solar Power – provide heat
for CO2 capture processes
• Geothermal and CCS
• Bio-CCS
Why Biomass and CCS - the
net carbon balance
Positive
Less
positive
Neutral to
slightly
positive
Neutral to
slightly
positive
Neutral to
negative
Fossil fuels
Fossil fuels
with CCS
Renewable
energy
Bio-energy
Bio-energy
with CCS
Koornneef, ECOFYS 2010
The challenges to integrating capture, transport
and storage
Economics
• Low or inexistent carbon price
• Unvalued benefit of CCS technology
learning
• Limited business opportunity (EOR,
small scale use)
Policy
• Uncertainty about long term climate
mitigation goals
• Lack of political recognition of the
role of CCS
• Lack of or limited incentives for CCS
Technology
Stakeholder views
• High cost of capture
• Technical complexity of adding
capture
• Commercial risks related to storage
• Complex commercial arrangements
• Opposition to projects in some
jurisdictions
• Unfavorable views on CCS as
perpetuating a fossil fuel world
• Concerns over risks of CO2 escape
• Lack of understanding by financiers
© OECD/IEA 2013
International regulatory
developments – why they
started happening
Role of CCS in climate change mitigation?
• IPCC Special Report (2005) – CCS contributing 15-55% of CO2
mitigation to 2100
• G8 2005 recognised CCS at highest level, 5 initiatives
• IEA Technology Perspectives (2006) – CCS 20-28% of
mitigation to 2050. Second only to energy efficiency.
• Stern Report (2006) – CCS ~10% mitigation by 2025, ~20% by
2050. Marginal mitigation costs without CCS increase by ~60%.
• 2004/5 Ocean acidification realisation
IPCC Special Report on
CCS (2005)
• “Observations from engineered and natural analogues as well as models
suggest that the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed
geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and is
likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years. “
•
“For well-selected, designed and managed sites, the vast majority of the
CO2 will gradually be immobilized by various trapping mechanisms and,
in that case, could be retained for up to millions of years. Storage could
become more secure over longer timescales. ”
London Convention and
Protocol
•
•
•
•
Marine Treaty - Global agreement regulating disposal of wastes and
other matter at sea
Convention 1972 (86 countries)
Protocol 1996 – ratified March 2006 (43 countries as of Jan 2014)
Prohibited some CCS project configurations
•
•
CO2 Geological Storage Assessed by LC Scientific Group 2005/6
2006 - Risk Assessment Framework for CO2
•
To allow prohibited CCS configurations – Protocol amendment adopted
at 28th Consultative Meeting (LP1), 2 Nov 2006 - came into force 10
Feb 2007 to allow disposal in geological formations
•
CO2 Specific Guidelines
8.6
Simulated and observed marine pH
ranges till 2100
8.4
pH range for the last 20 million years
8.2
pH
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7
190 ppm
280 ppm
370 ppm
500 ppm
Glacial
Pre-ind
Now
2050
700 ppm 1000 ppm
2100
2100 worst
case
PML
2005
EU Developments
EU Spring Council 2007 - Action Plan for Energy Policy for Europe
• Stimulate up to 12 CCS demonstrations by 2015
• Strengthen R&D and develop technical, economic and regulatory
framework to bring environmentally-safe CCS to deployment by
2020
•
CCS Directive – Environmental protection and enabling regulation
•
Emissions Trading Directive – GHG emissions
•
Drafted Jan 2008 - Adopted 6 April 2009, published 5 June 2009
UNFCCC and CCS
§ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) - 194 Parties, taking action to
reduce GHG emissions
§ Kyoto Protocol - 188 Parties, GHG emission limits
on developed countries
§ Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
§ Policy mechanism for rewarding CO2 reduction in
developing countries. Project-based carbon credits.
§ 7,400 projects – 1,400 Mt CO2e
Kyoto Protocol and CCS
Considering CCS in CDM since 2005
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
•
2005 CDM Executive Board (EB) considers two new CCS methodologies
2005 CMP1 Montreal
§ referred to SBSTA
2006 SBSTA Technical workshops - Consideration of technical and policy
issues – project boundary, leakage, permanence
On agenda of each SBSTA meeting
2007 and 2008 Submissions from Parties and NGOs – two synthesis reports
2008 Decision due at CMP4/COP14 Poznan – failed
§ CMP request EB to look at implications
2009 EB commission ‘Experts Report’
2009 Decision due at CMP5/COP15 Copenhagen – failed
2010 CMP6/COP16 Cancun ..............
All CCS CDM reports and background http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/ccs/index.html
Key issues of concern
Included
• Timescales of benefits vs liability
• Impact on CDM market
• Scale and impacts of leakage
• Furthering use of fossil fuels – sustainable development
• Role of CCS in climate change mitigation
• Negotiations characterised by a few countries having
strong views against CCS – but UNFCCC needs
consensus to progress
• UNFCCC CMP/COP16 (2010) Cancun – progress!
Eligible if concerns can be addressed in CCS-specific
regulations
UNFCCC
Technical Workshop 2011
Abu Dhabi 7-8 Sep 2011
• Brought technical expertise to negotiators
• Technical experts on site selection; modelling; accounting;
project boundaries; transboundary; risk assessment;
environmental impacts; monitoring; liability (28 talks,
several members of IEAGHG Networks).
• Results and experiences from real projects and natural
systems, to support modelling and risk assessments
• Good Q&As from CCS negotiators and others
Courtesy UNFCCC / K.Romanak,
BEG, UT
Courtesy A.Chadwick 2011
Courtesy A.Chadwick 2011
Courtesy A.Chadwick 2011
CO2 at the surface.
Natural Analog Chimayo,
New Mexico, USA
Courtesy K.Romanak 2011
•Integrated field, lab and
modeling.
•Trace elements are
strongly associated with
brackish water; in-situ
mobilization is negligible
Keating et. al., 2010
•Mineral precipitation
decreases metal
concentrations
CMP7/COP17 Durban (2011)
Negotiations on CCS CDM
• Over 32 hours of formal negotiations – 20 pages – Success!
Courtesy H.Olson UT
Significance of CCS M&Ps
from Durban
• Allows CCS to be CDM project activity and earn CERs
• Create incentives / signal for CCS in developing countries
ê CDM key international mechanism supporting low-C
technology in developing countries
• Legitimises CCS as valid technology for developing
countries
• Establishes precedence-setting regulatory framework for
CCS funded under international mechanisms
Role of Texas in CCS
Texas - A leader in CO2 EOR
Important industrial analogue
SACROC Oilfield, West Texas
Ø > 40 years CO2 injection for
enhanced oil recovery
Ø 150 Mt CO2 injected
Ø 75 Mt recovered and
recycled
Ø No indication of impact to
groundwater quality
Ø CO2 wants to be stored!
Role of Texas in CCS
Research and Demonstration
University of Texas:
• Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) – managing
CCS Demonstration projects, developing
monitoring techniques, onshore, offshore
• Dept Chemical Engineering – advancing CO2
capture technology, eg advanced process for
amine scrubbing to reduce costs by 20-30%.
Skyonic
• Capture of CO2 from cement plant
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme (IEAGHG)
• A collaborative international research programme founded in
1991
• Aim: To provide information on the role that technology can
play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from use of fossil
fuels.
• Focus is on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)
• Producing information that is:
ØObjective, trustworthy, independent
ØPolicy relevant but NOT policy prescriptive
ØReviewed by external Expert Reviewers
IEAGHG Flagship Activities
• Technical Studies >250 reports published on all aspects of CCS
• International Research Networks
• GHGT conferences
• Risk Assessment
• Wellbore Integrity
• Monitoring
• Modelling
• Environmental Impacts
• Oxy-combustion - conf
• Post-combustion Capture - conf
• Solid Looping
• Social Research
www.GHGT.info
5–9 October 2014
AUSTIN, TX – USA
•Call for papers
27th September 2013
•Deadline for abstracts 10th January 2014
•Registration opens
7th March 2014
•Authors notified
2nd May 2014
•Early bird closes
13th June 2014
Opportunities for Involvement :
• Attendance
• Sponsorships
• Exhibition booths
Contact:
Professor Gary Rochelle, UT, [email protected], tel: 512-471-7230
www.GHGT.info
International CCS Summer
Schools
• 7 Summer Schools
• Germany, Canada, Australia, USA,
Norway, China, UK
• Alumni now 386
• 8th in UT Austin, 6-12 July 2014
(student application deadline 28 Feb 2014)
Photo courtesy of L. Gauvreau, Schlumberger
Thank You
Any questions?
[email protected]
www.ieaghg.org