Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum Research Articles

Financing carbon capture and storage projects the results of two expert meetings

Abstract The IEA 2007 World Energy Outlook forecasts that fossil fuels will continue to dominate the energy mix until 2030, including large economies such as the EU, Japan, US and China. A growing concern among many countries is the design o f mechanism s that will finance clean coal technologies and in particular carbon capture and storage projects. To illustrate, it is estimated that the United States will require 170 GW of new coal -fired capacity prior to 2030 with 90% of that being post 2015. Therefore substantial government and private investment into carbon capture and storage (CCS ) projects will be required and m echanisms designed to facilitate that investment. Many organizations are examining this issue including the IEA Clean Coal Centre, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Clean Coal Power Initiative and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF). In 2007 and 2008 two expert meetings on financing post-demonstration CCS projects were organised in London and New York by the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme and the IEA Clean Coal Centre, with the support of the World Coal Institute and sponsorship from Chevr on and Rio Tinto. This paper reports back the results of those meetings in regard to identifying the key drivers for financing post-demonstration CCS projects in Europe and North America. This is of particular interest with the restructuring of the USA Fut ureGen Programme as well as the proposed inclusion of CCS within the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) in the future. Different options for financing such projects are explored and compared with a focus on how they could assist in the realisation of commercial CCS projects. In addition, this paper examines the response by the insurance, banking and other financial sectors to the potential investment opportunities CCS projects could provide in dealing with issues such as liability and project investment. Lastly, the paper analyses the knowledge and awareness of CCS technology within the financial community in general.

Assessment of the potential for geological storage of carbon dioxide in Ireland and Northern Ireland

The project used a multi-disciplinary approach to assess the potential for carbon capture and storage (CCS) offshore and onshore Ireland and Northern Ireland. The project work flow has used internationally recognised methodology to produce an integrated capture to storage road map for the island of Ireland. Using a basin-by-by basin approach, each sedimentary basin was individually assessed for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage potential in hydrocarbon fields and saline aquifers. CSLF methodology was applied to calculate storage capacity for the identified sites; each potential storage site was categorised according to the CSLF techno-economic resource pyramid [S. Bachu, D. Bonijoly, J. Bradshaw, R. Burruss, N.P. Christensen, S. Holloway, O.M. Mathiassen, Estimation of CO2 Storage Capacity in Geological Media, Phase 2. Prepared for the Task Force on CO2 Storage Capacity Estimation for the Technical Group of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, 2007]. Identification and characterisation of point sources allowed hub scenarios to be developed between the major CO2 point source emissions and the most promising geological storage sites. This allowed potential pipeline routes to be identified and engineering specification and costs to be addressed as well as consideration of planning, public safety and environmental issues. A range of capture transport and storage options were produced and subjected to rigorous economic assessment. The major hubs identified are as follows: Moneypoint (Co. Clare) - Kinsale Head Gas Field, North Celtic Sea Kilroot (Co. Antrim) - Closed structures in the Portpatrick Basin Cork - Kinsale Head Gas Field, North Celtic Sea

CO 2 storage capacity estimation: Issues and development of standards

Associated with the endeavours of geoscientists to pursue the promise that geological storage of CO 2 has of potentially making deep cuts into greenhouse gas emissions, Governments around the world are dependent on reliable estimates of CO 2 storage capacity and insightful indications of the viability of geological storage in their respective jurisdictions. Similarly, industry needs reliable estimates for business decisions regarding site selection and development. If such estimates are unreliable, and decisions are made based on poor advice, then valuable resources and time could be wasted. Policies that have been put in place to address CO 2 emissions could be jeopardised. Estimates need to clearly state the limitations that existed (data, time, knowledge) at the time of making the assessment and indicate the purpose and future use to which the estimates should be applied. A set of guidelines for estimation of storage capacity will greatly assist future deliberations by government and industry on the appropriateness of geological storage of CO 2 in different geological settings and political jurisdictions. This work has been initiated under the auspices of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum ( www.cslforum.org), and it is intended that it will be an ongoing taskforce to further examine issues associated with storage capacity estimation.

Characterization of sites for geological storage of carbon dioxide

Stefan Bachu is senior advisor for Energy and Carbon Management Geoscience in the Alberta Geological Survey, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. During his career, he has been involved in various research activities related to the subsurface flow of fluids and heat, with application to the Western Canada sedimentary basin. For more than a decade, Stefan has focused his efforts on the potential for CO2 storage in geological media in Alberta as a mitigation strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Because of his expertise in this emerging field, Stefan was appointed lead author and contributed to chapter 5 on CO2 Geological Storage of the IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage . In 2004, Stefan served on the CO2 Task Force of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and currently is a member of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Strategic Project Grants Panel for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and also represents Canada on the Technical Group of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. Stefan holds advanced degrees in water resources, hydrogeology, and transport processes. Matthias Grobe is a geologist and leader of the Acid Gas and CO2 Storage Section at the Alberta Geological Survey of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. He received his M.Sc. degree in geology from the University of Tubingen, Germany, and his Ph.D. in geology from the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, with a focus on the sedimentology and diagenesis of carbonate rocks. He considers geoscience data and knowledge as key components for the assessment of the suitability, capacity, and safety of geological storage options. Matt has been an associate editor for the journal Environmental Geosciences for several years and is currently a member of the Division of Environmental Geosciences Advisory Board. Interpretation of the …

The Relationship

I want to talk about shared values, and shared goals, and I also want to talk about the global context of much of what Canada and the United States do together. I am not one of those people who believe these two countries are diverging.The fact of the matter is that there are more differences within each country than there are between our two countries, and we do have fundamental goals that we share in this hemisphere and around the globe and we do share fundamental values. Energy is one thing that we're working closely on. We get more oil from Canada than we get from Saudi Arabia, and we know that the potential in the oil sands is quite vast. Gas is another big export from Canada to the United States, natural gas. And even as we work to get the Alaska Slope gas and the Mackenzie Valley gas, I think we all realize that the demand for gas in North America will probably even outstrip those supplies. What has been a continental market and a continental price will soon become a global price, so what happens in the fields of Nigeria will have an impact on the price of natural gas in North America. We know that from oil: even though Canada is an oil-producing country, the price of that oil is determined by the world market. So we will continue to work together to make sure we have the energy to keep the economies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico growing. We will continue to integrate this North American energy market. We are already integrated quite a bit on the grid. When the lights went out in New York a couple of summers ago, they also went out in Toronto and Ottawa, and many other parts of Ontario. We need to improve and modernize that grid; we need to have mandatory reliability standards and these things our two countries are working on together.Environmental protection is another goal that we share. We have beautiful natural resources in Canada and in the United States. And we are working on a whole number of initiatives to make sure that we can protect the air and the water and the beautiful lands for future generations. We are working together on climate change. I know we have taken different approaches to Kyoto, but despite that fact, we are working together on the international partnership for the hydrogen economy; we are working on the carbon sequestration leadership forum; we are working together on the global earth observation system.The United States is committed to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. President Bush has indicated that we want to address this problem with sound science and we want to be able to maintain our standard of living at the same time. We have a plan to slow, stop, and ultimately reverse these emissions based on sound science. We believe that this makes sense because economic growth provides the resources for new environmental investment. Just to make the point, because I know this is misunderstood both in the press in Canada and in the United States, we are spending US$5.8 billion per year on this in the United States. That is more money than all of Europe, Japan, and Canada combined, because we are determined to get the science right, so that we can address the problem of global warming and global climate change while maintaining our standard of living and our way of life at the same time. So we will continue to work with Canada as well as other countries because this is another issue that has a global impact. I've been to Paddockwood and to Churchill and I know the impact this warming has already had in London. It affects wildlife activity: the ice freezes later, and that's not good news for the polar bears. They've got to get out on the ice to get the seals. It is affecting the north and the Arctic but there's no question that this will affect the entire globe and we have to work together to get the science right to address it.Another goal that Canada and the United States share is to defeat the terrorist threat, and I can tell you that I often say that in the United States we cannot defend our homeland without the help of Canada. …

03/01821 Geothermal-energy resources in the Polish Lowlands and the possibility of their industrial utilization: Górecki, W. et al. Applied Energy, 2003, 74, (1–2), 53–64

In densely populated countries there is a growing and compelling need to use underground for different and possibly coexisting technologies to produce “low carbon” energy. These technologies include (i) clean coal combustion merged with CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS); (ii) last-generation nuclear power or, in any case, safe nuclear wastes disposal, both “temporary” and “geological” somewhere in Europe (at least in one site): Nuclear wastes are not necessarily associated to nuclear power plants; (iii) safe natural gas (CH4) reserves to allow consumption also when the foreign pipelines are less available or not available for geopolitical reasons and (iv) “low-space-consuming” renewables in terms of Energy Density Potential in Land (EDPL measured in [GW h/ha/year]) as geothermics. When geothermics is exploited as low enthalpy technology, the heat/cool production could be associated, where possible, to increased measures of “building efficiency”, low seismic risks building reworking and low-enthalpy heat managing. This is undispensable to build up “smart cities”. In any case the underground geological knowledge is prerequisite.All these technologies have been already proposed and defined by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Road Map 2009 as priorities for worldwide security: all need to use underground in a rational and safe manner. The underground is not renewable in most of case histories [10], [11]. IEA recently matched and compared different technologies in a unique “Clean Energy Economy” improved document (Paris, November 16–17, 2011), by the contribution of this vision too (see reference).In concert with “energy efficiency” improvement both for plants and buildings, in the frame of the “smart cities” scenarios, and the upstanding use of “energy savings”, the energetic planning on regional scale where these cities are located, are strategic for the year 2050: this planning is strongly depending by the underground availability and typology. Therefore, if both literature and European Policy are going fast to improve the concept of “smart cities” this paper stresses the concept of “smart regions”, more strategic than “smart cities”, passing throughout a discussion on the synergic and conflicting use of underground to produce energy for the “smart regions” as a whole.The paper highlights the research lines which are urgent to plan the soundest energy mix for each region by considering the underground performances case by case: a worldwide mapping, by GIS tools of this kind of information could be strategic for all the “world energy management” authorities, up to ONU, with its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the G20, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) and the European Platforms such as the “Zero Emissions Fossil Fuel Power Plants” (EU-ZEP Platform), the Steel Platform, the Biomass Platform too. All of these organizations agree on the need for synergistic and coexistent uses of underground for geological storage of CO2, CH4, nuclear waste and geothermic exploitation.The paper is therefore a discussion of the tools, methods and approaches to these underground affecting technologies, after a gross view of the different uses of underground to produce energy for each use, with their main critical issues (i.e. public acceptance in different cases).The paper gives some gross evaluation for the Lazio Region and some hints from the Campania Region, located in Central Italy. Energy Density Potential in Land (EDPL), is calculated for each renewable energy technology (solar, wind, geothermal) highlighting the potentiality of the last.Why the Italian case history among the densely populated countries? on the Italian territory is hard to find suitable areas (mostly if greenfields) to use the own underground, with respect to other European countries, due to the presence of seismotectonic activity and many faulted areas characterized by Diffuse Degassing Structures (DDSs, which are rich in CO2 and CH4). In this cases, public acceptance must be facilitated by the concerted efforts of researchers, universities, NGOs and policy-makers.

03/01822 Heat-flow characteristics of one-hole and two-hole systems for winning geothermal heat: Kujawa, T. et al. Applied Energy, 2003, 74, (1–2), 21–31

In densely populated countries there is a growing and compelling need to use underground for different and possibly coexisting technologies to produce “low carbon” energy. These technologies include (i) clean coal combustion merged with CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS); (ii) last-generation nuclear power or, in any case, safe nuclear wastes disposal, both “temporary” and “geological” somewhere in Europe (at least in one site): Nuclear wastes are not necessarily associated to nuclear power plants; (iii) safe natural gas (CH4) reserves to allow consumption also when the foreign pipelines are less available or not available for geopolitical reasons and (iv) “low-space-consuming” renewables in terms of Energy Density Potential in Land (EDPL measured in [GW h/ha/year]) as geothermics. When geothermics is exploited as low enthalpy technology, the heat/cool production could be associated, where possible, to increased measures of “building efficiency”, low seismic risks building reworking and low-enthalpy heat managing. This is undispensable to build up “smart cities”. In any case the underground geological knowledge is prerequisite.All these technologies have been already proposed and defined by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Road Map 2009 as priorities for worldwide security: all need to use underground in a rational and safe manner. The underground is not renewable in most of case histories [10], [11]. IEA recently matched and compared different technologies in a unique “Clean Energy Economy” improved document (Paris, November 16–17, 2011), by the contribution of this vision too (see reference).In concert with “energy efficiency” improvement both for plants and buildings, in the frame of the “smart cities” scenarios, and the upstanding use of “energy savings”, the energetic planning on regional scale where these cities are located, are strategic for the year 2050: this planning is strongly depending by the underground availability and typology. Therefore, if both literature and European Policy are going fast to improve the concept of “smart cities” this paper stresses the concept of “smart regions”, more strategic than “smart cities”, passing throughout a discussion on the synergic and conflicting use of underground to produce energy for the “smart regions” as a whole.The paper highlights the research lines which are urgent to plan the soundest energy mix for each region by considering the underground performances case by case: a worldwide mapping, by GIS tools of this kind of information could be strategic for all the “world energy management” authorities, up to ONU, with its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the G20, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) and the European Platforms such as the “Zero Emissions Fossil Fuel Power Plants” (EU-ZEP Platform), the Steel Platform, the Biomass Platform too. All of these organizations agree on the need for synergistic and coexistent uses of underground for geological storage of CO2, CH4, nuclear waste and geothermic exploitation.The paper is therefore a discussion of the tools, methods and approaches to these underground affecting technologies, after a gross view of the different uses of underground to produce energy for each use, with their main critical issues (i.e. public acceptance in different cases).The paper gives some gross evaluation for the Lazio Region and some hints from the Campania Region, located in Central Italy. Energy Density Potential in Land (EDPL), is calculated for each renewable energy technology (solar, wind, geothermal) highlighting the potentiality of the last.Why the Italian case history among the densely populated countries? on the Italian territory is hard to find suitable areas (mostly if greenfields) to use the own underground, with respect to other European countries, due to the presence of seismotectonic activity and many faulted areas characterized by Diffuse Degassing Structures (DDSs, which are rich in CO2 and CH4). In this cases, public acceptance must be facilitated by the concerted efforts of researchers, universities, NGOs and policy-makers.