21st – 22nd April 2009 Gold Coast, Australia · 2013. 7. 25. · 35th EXCO MEETING 21st – 22nd...

35th EXCO MEETING 21st – 22nd April 2009

Gold Coast, Australia

This document has been prepared for the Executive Committee of the IEA GHG Programme. It is not a publication of the Operating Agent, International Energy Agency or its Secretariat.

Contents Page Adoption of agenda………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Motion on procedure at the meeting………………………………………………………………………………

1 3

Minutes of 34th meeting…………………………………………………………………………………………………. Corrections to minutes……………………………………………………………………………………………………

5 25

Matters arising from the 34th meeting ‐ list of actions and status ………………………………… 27 Operating Agent’s Report………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29 Progress Report……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30 Finances 2008 Budget out run….………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2009 Budget………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Financial/budgetary Issues..…………………………………………………………………………………..

41 43 45

Update on Ad Hoc Strategy Group Activities………………………………………………………………….. 47 Guidelines for membership…………………………………………………………………………………………… 49 Outline Strategy for Phase 6………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51 Completed Activities

What have we learnt from demonstration projects? Current status…………………….. 55 Health and Safety of CCS………………………………………………………………………………………… 67 Removal of impurities from CO2……………………………………………………………………………… 73 Improved solvent scrubbing processes………………………………………………………………….. 75 CO2 Storage in gas fields…………………………………………………………………………………………. 83

Revised study proposal – capture in Iron and Steel plant……………………………………………….. 93 Study Prioritisation………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 95 Pressurisation and Brine Displacement Issues for Deep Saline Formation Storage.. 97

Technical Economic Evaluations of New Processes for CO2 Capture………………………. 99 Potential Risks to Potable Groundwater from CO2 Storage…………………………………….. 101 Barriers to Implementation of CCS ‐ Capacity Constraints……………………………………… 103 Potential for Biomass with CCS………………………………………………………………………………. 105 Potential Effects of CO2 Waste Stream Impurities on Geological Storage……………… 107

Studies to be reconsidered for future voting rounds/Members Ideas for Future Studies.. 109 Feedback from GHGT‐9 & direction of future conferences……………………………………………. 111 GHGT‐11 Status………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 115 Modelling Network Meeting Feedback…………………………………………………………………………… 117 Feedback on Practical R&D Projects

IEA GHG Weyburn‐Midale Monitoring Project………………………………………………………. 119 MOVECBM……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 121

Student Summer School web site update……………………..………………………………………………… 123 Feedback from COP/MOP & status of CCS in CDM………………………………………………………….. 125 IEA GHG interactions with IEA ‐ Regulators Network and road maps…………………………….. 129 Feedback on IEA Activities………………………………………………………………………………………………. 131 Members Activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 133 Date of Next Meeting……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 135 Any Other Business………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 137

GHG/09/01

IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME 35th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

Brisbane, Australia, April 2009

ITEM

FIRST DAY (08.30hrs) Paper

1) Welcome, safety briefing, introduction of new members and observers No paper 2) Adoption of agenda

Motion on procedure at the meeting GHG/09/01 GHG/09/02

3) Minutes of 34th meeting Corrections to minutes

GHG/09/03 GHG/09/04

4) Matters arising from the 34th meeting - list of actions and status GHG/09/05 5) Operating Agent’s Report No Paper 6) Progress Report GHG/09/06

7) Annual Review 2008 GHG/09/07

8) Finances -2008 Budget out turn Finances -2009 Budget Financial/budgetary issues

GHG/09/08 GHG/09/09 GHG/09/10

9) Update on Ad Hoc Strategy Group Activities Guidelines for membership Outline Strategy for Phase 6

GHG/09/11 GHG/09/12 GHG/09/13

10) Completed Activities

10.1) What have we learnt from demonstration projects? Current status GHG/09/14

10.2) Health and Safety of CCS GHG/09/15

10.3) Removal of impurities from CO2 GHG/09/16

10.4) Improved solvent scrubbing processes GHG/09/17

10.5) CO2 Storage in gas fields GHG/09/18

11) Revised study proposal – capture in Iron and Steel plant GHG/09/19

1

GHG/09/01

ITEM SECOND DAY (08.30) Paper

12) Study Prioritisation GHG/09/20

12.1) Pressurisation and Brine Displacement Issues for Deep Saline Formation Storage

GHG/09/21

12.2) Technical Economic Evaluations of New Processes for CO2 Capture GHG/09/22

12.3) Potential Risks to Potable Groundwater from CO2 Storage GHG/09/23

12.4) Barriers to Implementation of CCS - Capacity Constraints GHG/09/24

12.5) Potential for Biomass with CCS GHG/09/25

12.6) Potential Effects of CO2 Waste Stream Impurities on Geological Storage

GHG/09/26

13) Studies to be reconsidered for future voting rounds/Members Ideas for Future Studies

No Paper

14) Feedback from GHGT-9 & direction of future conferences GHGT-11 status

GHG/09/27 No paper

15) Modelling Network Meeting Feedback GHG/09/28

16) Feedback on Practical R&D Activities IEA GHG Weyburn-Midale Monitoring Project MOVECBM

GHG/09/29 GHG/09/30

17) Student summer school web site update GHG/09/31

18) Feedback from COP/MOP & status of CCS in CDM GHG/09/32

19) IEA GHG interactions with IEA - Regulators Network and road maps Feed back on IEA Activities

GHG/09/33 No Paper

20) Members Activities No Paper

21) DONM GHG/09/34

22) AOB

22) Close of Meeting

2

GHG/09/02


MOTION ON PROCEDURE AT THE MEETING

The following motion is proposed:

Anyone who is present at this meeting shall have the right to speak, when recognised by the Chairman.

To gain the Chairman’s attention, members should turn their nameplate onto its end. This will help the Chairman ensure that everyone who wishes to speak has a chance to do so.

3

GHG/09/03

IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME MINUTES OF THE 34th EXCO MEETING

Washington D.C., USA, 14th – 15th November 2008 PRESENT

Dr Kelly Thambimuthu (Chairman) Centre for Low Emission Technology Australia Dr John Carras CSIRO Energy Technology Australia Mr Bill Reynen CANMET Canada Dr Malcolm Wilson University of Regina Canada Mr Ron Wilson Ontario Power Generation Canada Mr Michael Madsen Vattenfall Denmark Mr Ilkka Savolainen VTT Finland Dr Nathalie Thybaud ADEME France Mr Jürgen-Friedrich Hake Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Germany Dr Makoto Akai AIST Japan Dr Masahiro Nishio AIST Japan Mr Trygve Riis The Research Council of Norway Norway Dr Fuad Siala OPEC Dr Anthony Surridge SANERI South Africa Miss Mónica Lupión CIUDEN Spain Mr Sven-Olov Ericson (Vice Chair) Ministry of Sustainable Development Sweden Dr Gunter Siddiqi Swiss Federal Office of Energy Switzerland Mr Erik H Lysen Utrecht Centre for Energy research The Netherlands Mr Peter Versteegh SenterNovem The Netherlands Miss Rachel Crisp BERR UK Dr Jay Braitsch US Department of Energy USA Dr. Lowell Miller US Department of Energy USA Mr Nick Otter ALSTOM Dr Markus Wolf ALSTOM Mr Kevin McCauley Babcock & Wilcox Mr Andrew Wharton BG Group Mr Gardiner Hill BP Mr Arthur Lee Chevron Mr Ales Laciok CEZ Dr Cal Cooper ConocoPhillips Dr Tim Hill E.ON UK Mr Richard Rhudy EPRI Mr John Wilkinson ExxonMobil Mr Martin Fasola Repsol YPF Dr Johannes Heithoff RWE Mr Gabriel Marquette Schlumberger Dr Tom Mikus Shell Mr Olav Karstad StatoilHydro IEA GHG Mr John Gale IEA GHG Mr Brendan Beck IEA GHG Mr Neil Wildgust IEA GHG Mr Tim Dixon IEA GHG Dr Stanley Santos IEA GHG Mr Mike Haines IEA GHG Mr Toby Aiken IEA GHG Mr John Davison IEA GHG Dr John Topper IEA EPL

5

GHG/09/03

Observers Mr Clement Yoong Department of Resources, Energy and

Tourism, Australian Government Australia

Mr John Hartwell Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Australian Government

Australia

Mr Bill Koppe Anglo Coal/CIAB Australia Mrs Sabine List BMVIT Austria Dr Peter Petrov European Commission Mr Kamel Bennaceur IEA Mr Mario Graziadio ENEL Italy Mrs Isabelle Czernichowski-Lauriol BRGM France Mr Eemeli Tsupari VTT Finland Dr Tsukasa Kumagai JGC Japan Dr Ito Fumihiro JGC Japan Mr Seong Jegarl KEPRI Korea Mrs Annemarieke Grinwis Ministry of Economic Affairs Netherlands Dr Antonio Diego Marin Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas Mexico Prof Krzysztof Warmuzinski Polish Academy of Sciences Poland Dr Darren Mollot DOE USA

6

GHG/09/03

1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS On behalf of the Executive Committee (ExCo), Kelly Thambimuthu welcomed Members’ and Sponsors’ representatives and observers and then extended a welcome to all new members, new member representatives and those attending the ExCo for the first time. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda and motion for procedure at the meeting (documents GHG/08/29 and GHG/08/30) were adopted. 3. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR Document GHG/08/31 refers. John Topper explained the procedure for electing the Chair and Vice Chair, and that Sven-Olov Ericson was standing for re-election, and that no other nominations had been received. Sven-Olov was proposed by Olav Kårstad of StatoilHydro, and seconded by John Carras of Australia. Sven-Olov Ericson was duly elected as Vice Chair, and it was noted that the minutes be corrected to show him as Mr, not Dr as stated, and the election be for Vice Chair, not Chair as stated in the minutes. 4. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS (33rd) MEETING Documents GHG/08/32 and GHG/08/33 refer. With regard to South Africa’s membership, it was noted that SANERI, as a government funded agency, will only be able to join as a Contracting party rather than a sponsor. The minute stating that political processes in South Africa were slowing the process of joining is to be removed from the previous minutes. Tom Mikus from Shell requested his name be added to those present at the Berlin meeting. Members formally approved the minutes of the 33rd meeting subject to the listed modifications being made. 5. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE 33rd MEETING Document GHG/08/34 refers. John Gale explained that most of the listed actions were completed, and that the member for the Netherlands had raised a request for the ExCo to consider a biofuels study. John Gale stated that he was unsure as to what benefit the GHG programme could deliver on this topic and to what extent the topic was already covered by other Implementing Agreements, but he would investigate this. John Gale explained that following the strategy meeting held by the Adhoc Group on Strategy, if it is considered that this is a topic where IEA GHG can do something in the future a proposal will be brought forward to the ExCo for consideration. Ron Wilson (Canada) said the same topic had been suggested to the IEA CCC. John Topper clarified that IEA CCC was looking at a related topic of co-gasification and co-firing of biomass.

Action 1: General Manager 6. OPERATING AGENT REPORT (No paper). John Topper explained the revisions to the staffing structure, and the current vacancies in the capture area for a capture team leader. A number of applications have been received and the interview process was underway, hopefully an appointment can be made shortly. John Davison will now work in a part time capacity as a permanent staff member. An additional issue to be noted is that of UK VAT. In the past, IEA GHG was registered for VAT and as such was able to reclaim any VAT incurred. However following a recent inspection by H.M. Revenue and Customs (HMRC), it is possible that this status will be revoked. HMRC have notified us that we are likely to lose the status, and the resultant effect would be a £50,000 pa deficit in non reclaimed VAT. Several members questioned why this should be the case after many years operating under an exemption, and John Topper explained that the VAT laws of the UK were extremely complex, and were open to interpretation. The way IEA GHG operates doesn’t quite fit into any of the pre-determined scenarios, and as such the decision of HMRC is that IEA GHG does not now qualify for the status previously held.

7

GHG/09/03

IEA GHG will appeal against the decision if it is confirmed. Members offered to write in support of the appeal, with support from their governments. John Topper suggested this would be well received and the letters should be addressed to himself as the Managing Director for IEA EPL . John Gale will supply guidelines of points to make in such a letter as and when these were required.

Action 2: General Manager John Topper and John Gale explained that the members suggestion of basing the company outside of the UK in a virtual office scenario would be investigated pending the outcome of the appeal, and would be discussed at a future ExCo as and when appropriate. 7. PROGRESS REPORT Document GHG/08/35 refers. John Gale summarised progress since the 33rd meeting, explaining that it had been a busy period of activity, not helped by having a member of staff on maternity leave, but staff had covered this internally. Membership Membership formalities have been completed for South Africa, and John Gale extended his own welcome to Tony Surridge, the representative for South Africa, who confirmed he was glad to be present at the meeting. John went on to explain that the process for Brazilian membership was more protracted and hoped that these would be resolved in the coming year. Discussions with other potential contracting parties and sponsors were ongoing and details will be updated at the next ExCo meeting. Following discussions at the 33rd ExCo meeting, the CIAB had now formally expressed their interest in joining IEA GHG as a sponsor. John Gale explained that the CIAB had discussed membership of IEA GHG at their plenary meeting in early November in Paris and had unanimously voted to join. Since the last ExCo the General Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, had consulted all members where their were issues of membership overlap and all had responded positively about CIAB membership and that it would not affect their own membership. Bill Koppe, an observer representing the CIAB, briefly explained the CIAB purpose and membership. He explained that the CIAB links with the IEA are currently centred around energy supply and the climate change response. The Executive Committee unanimously resolved to invite CIAB to join the Implementing Agreement for a Co-operative Programme on Technologies Relating to Greenhouse Gases Derived from Fossil Fuel Use as a sponsor. The Executive Committee authorised the General Manager to expedite the formal procedures for CIAB’s membership as a sponsor and complete negotiations on the terms and conditions on behalf of the Executive Committee.

Action 3: General Manager JGC Corporation has also expressed an interest in joining the programme. A letter expressing their interest was circulated to members prior to the meeting, but is also included in the minutes for reference (Appendix 1). The Japanese representatives have been consulted and they were happy to supports JGC‘s membership of the programme. Makoto Akai confirmed this in the meeting. A brief overview of the JGC Corporation was given by Fumihiro Ito. The Executive Committee unanimously resolved to invite JGC Corporation to join the Implementing Agreement for a Co-operative Programme on Technologies Relating to Greenhouse Gases Derived from Fossil Fuel Use as a sponsor. The Executive Committee authorised the General Manager to expedite the formal procedures for JGC Corporation membership as a sponsor and complete negotiations on the terms and conditions on behalf of the Executive Committee.

Action 4: General Manager ENEL have expressed a similar interest to join the programme, and a letter from ENEL was distributed to members at the meeting. The letter is attached to the minutes for member’s reference, see Appendix 2. Italy is not a contracting party to this Implementing Agreement, Kelly Thambimuthu spoke in support of ENEL joining as a sponsor. Mario Graziadio, gave a brief outline of ENEL and their operations.

8

GHG/09/03

The Executive Committee unanimously resolved to invite ENEL to join the Implementing Agreement for a Co-operative Programme on Technologies Relating to Greenhouse Gases Derived from Fossil Fuel Use as a sponsor. The Executive Committee authorised the General Manager to expedite the formal procedures for ENEL’s membership as a sponsor and complete negotiations on the terms and conditions on behalf of the Executive Committee.

Action 5: General Manager Tom Mikus of Shell asked whether the issue of a maximum number of members had been discussed. Kelly Thambimuthu stated that this was covered by the strategy committee and would be covered later. John Gale briefly stated that the intention was to maintain a broad balance between contracting parties and sponsors and that current invitations would maintain that balance. John Topper added that the same issue had already been discussed at an IEA CCC ExCo and that it was decided that sponsor applications be judged on merit, and what they bring much to the group. He also pointed out that it was advisable to ensure that where a new sponsor applicant came from a country which was already represented in the ExCo, the Contracting Party should be in agreement. Whilst the latter was not a formal requirement the ultimate approval of Sponsor applications lay with the IEA’s Committee on Energy Research and Technology (CERT) and this was attended only by representatives of governments. Bill Reynen approved of the balance, and asked if there were financial implications of increases regarding inflation and the financial stability of the programme. John Gale stated that the additional sponsors would more than counter any loss incurred as a result of the ruling on VAT eligibility. John Gale stated that Petrobras were also interested in joining the programme, but administrative issues had prevented their attendance as observers at this ExCo. Report Approval John Gale addressed the issue of IEA GHG report approval, and explained that the review system in place was a 2 stage process, with the report initially being distributed to a panel of expert reviewers, and secondly to members. The expert review process assures the technical content is correct, and the members review is intended to ensure there is no content in the overview that is policy prescriptive. Lately, the response from members to the overviews has been limited, with some studies drawing no comments whatsoever. John asked whether this is an indication that all members are happy with the studies as they are being produced, or whether we need to adjust the system to allow more time for members to review the study overviews. The current timescale allows 2 weeks for members to comment before publication of the study, and Kelly Thambimuthu asked members to comment on whether this is sufficient or whether it needs extending. Cal Cooper made the first comment, by stating that realistically, members input would benefit from more time, but also some guidance to new members as to what style of input is required/desired from members. John Gale explained that the process is designed to show that due diligence has been followed, and the overview that is produced for members is aimed to demonstrate that there are no policy prescriptive messages in the overview or report. This was echoed by Kelly Thambimuthu, before Arthur Lee commented that with the busy schedule that many members have, more time would naturally be beneficial, but that the general feeling is that there is a level of trust given to those writing studies and overviews to avoid policy prescriptive notes. Eric Lysen suggested extending the time to 1 month, and perhaps identifying areas of a report pertinent to particular members, and possibly endeavouring to get ministerial involvement in the review process. John Gale proposed that the time limit for reviews be extended to 1 month, with a reminder given at the 3 week stage. Kelly Thambimuthu asked John Gale to amend the procedures in line with this decision.

Action 6: General Manager

9

GHG/09/03

International Research Networks John Gale outlined the meetings already in the planning stages for 2009, and explained that individual meetings of the Risk Assessment and Monitoring networks weren’t held this year due to the first Joint Network Meeting, which will be discussed later. IEA GHG is still involved with several collaborative research projects funded by the EC, and these are going strong. The IEA GHG websites are undergoing continual development and updating, with a major overhaul planned for www.ieagreen.org.uk. in 2009. John also mentioned the IEA GHG newsletter, Greenhouse Issues at this point, and requested that members supply articles detailing their activities if there were suitable topics, and that members could suggest topics they had heard about that IEA GHG staff could then follow up for articles.

Action 7: Members IJGGC John Gale updated members on the activities of the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, and advised that the board meeting would take place following the ExCo at the GHGT9 conference. Plans for 2009 include moving from 4 to 6 issues per year, and each issue would be larger. The first 2 issues for 2009 are full, and the 3rd is half way complete already. A special issue from GHGT-9 will fill issue 4 or 5. There is no shortage of interest in publishing articles. The journal expects to get an Impact Factor this year. Capacity Building The second summer school had been run in August in Canada, and feedback was very positive. The summer school series is going well, and is growing increasingly popular with many more registrations than can be accommodated. Tony Surridge commented that feedback from students from South Africa was extremely complimentary, and this activity must be vigorously supported in the future. Kamel Bennaceur, IEA stated that there could be considerable interest from Middle Eastern countries; John Gale requested additional names from Kamel if possible to ensure we invite students from those countries.

Action 8: Kamel Bennacur, IEA Stanley Santos had attended a CSLF Capacity Building workshop in Mexico and a similar event organised by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Indonesia. GHGT9 John Gale discussed the upcoming GHGT9 conference and explained that it was looking to be the biggest yet. Registration had closed the week before, but demand had necessitated that it be re-opened to allow additional delegates to register. For the first time, the conference organisers have had to expand to 6 parallel sessions, and the opening plenary may have to be video streamed to additional rooms due to capacity constraints. Planning for GHGT10 is already underway, and GHGT11 will also have to be considered in the near future. The next ExCo in Brisbane (April 2009) will discuss the progression of GHGT11, and discuss possible venues. Members interested in hosting GHGT-11 should make their interest known to the General Manager

Action 9: Members It was noted that 2 members had raised queries regarding alleged bias in paper selection towards certain countries, but John Gale demonstrated the origins of the papers selected for both oral and poster presentations, and there was clearly no bias in any nation’s favour. It was also noted that the conference does rotate in terms of global location, and as such there is bound to be a change in focus depending on the location. However this was thought to be good for the conference series. The Programme Committee involved group of nine internationally established experts on CCS. Paper selection was carried out by an extensive review process, whereby 250 reviewers reviewed up to 20 papers, and each paper was reviewed by at least 2 reviewers to ensure an independent review process.

10

GHG/09/03

Plans for GHGT10 are established, and the venue has the capacity to hold up to 1800 delegates which should be sufficient. The problem with Amsterdam is more likely to be hotel availability so early booking will be advisable. Kelly Thambimuthu thanked the programme team, the chairs and the reviewers; it was a huge effort and was very well done. Collaborative Activities IEA GHG has had a lot of contact with the CO2GeoNet programme, and jointly has developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for future co-operation. IEA GHG has signed similar MoU’s before. In the case of CO2GeoNet the MoU is designed to formalise on-going co-operation. They have already placed several articles in Greenhouse Issues. Isabelle Czernichowski has also been instrumental in establishing and planning the modelling meeting. CO2GeoNet have also supported the last two summer schools. Kelly Thambimuthu asked members if they were happy for John Gale to sign the Memorandum of Understanding, and this was unanimously agreed.

Action 10: General Manager The next item discussed was the upcoming IIASA GEA Assessment Report, which will include a chapter on CCS activity, John Gale had been invited to participate as a Lead Author in the chapters preparation. In addition, John Gale had been invited to participate in the IARU International Scientific Congress on Climate Change to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark in early March 2009. The congress is part of the run-up to COP 15. Its purpose is to try and capture some of the enormous research energy currently being devoted to the elucidation, mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Kelly Thambimuthu asked members if they were happy for IEA GHG to participate in this activity and several questions were raised; Arthur Lee asked what the implications were for the later COP15 meeting, and John Gale explained that it was aimed to feed recommendations into COP15. Tony Surridge asked what influence it would have over COP/MOP to include CCS activities and again John Gale answered, that it is a prelude to the main event, and the input might potentially be limited. Rachel Crisp stated her support of the IEA GHG being represented at this event and explained that it provides expert opinion to the Copenhagen conference. Jürgen-Friedrich Hake asked what message IEA GHG would give, John Gale expressed the view that the ‘What Have We Learnt?’ study would prove timely and be beneficial in this situation. Nick Otter re-iterated the message that the point of taking part is to accelerate the processes, and that the work started by the ‘What Have We Learnt?’ study would continue and grow. Arthur Lee stated that he appreciated that IEA GHG should be present and had no problems with the activity, but questioned the relevance of the activities. It is one of many similar activities, and although this is seen as a good one, questioned how IEA GHG could effectively participate. Kelly Thambimuthu answered this comment by explaining that although we wouldn’t necessarily have a huge profile at the event, we should be there in our own right. Kelly Thambimuthu also explained that could contribute to the overall view taken on the status of CCS. Kelly Thambimuthu asked members to approve our participation in the activity and this was agreed.


11

GHG/09/03

8. FINANCE Documents GHG/08/36, 37 and 38 refer. John Gale presented the audited members accounts and explained that they are based on the UK tax year, rather than the membership year and asked members to approve the audited accounts. Members unanimously approved the audited accounts. John Gale presented the progress on budget for the membership year, in general the projected out turn of income and expenditure was in line with the budget presented at the 33rd ExCo meeting. Tony Surridge asked if there was a contingency for the VAT issue discussed previously, and John Gale said that currently we are owed around £24,000 of VAT, and the shortfall will appear in the end of year accounts. He reiterated that the new Member contributions will more than cover any VAT loss. John Topper stated that John Gale and Tricia Watkins have put in a lot of work to overhaul the procedures for accounting and bank activity, and although there were no problems with the previous methods, the new procedures are a great improvement. John Gale explained that the security of members funds held on deposit has been improved, with deposits now being spread over different accounts in different banks. Currently there is a disparity between the membership year and the UK tax year. This means that IEA GHG produces two budgets each year, one for the tax year and another for the membership year. To reduce administrative effort it was proposed to only produce one budget per year based on the UK tax year which is a statutory requirement anyway. This suggestion was raised by both the IEA EPL Board and the accountants at the annual audit. Members universally agreed with this proposal. The General Manager will now produce a budget for the year 2008/9 in time for member’s approval at the spring ExCo and report progress at the autumn ExCo.

Action 12: General Manager Peter Versteegh suggested that we tidy everything up and bring the membership year (currently December – November) invoicing in line with the UK tax year (April – March). John Gale responded that this would be a sensible move, but that it could be problematical to change now. Kelly Thambimuthu asked the General Manager to consider the easiest process of moving the membership year invoicing in line with the budget year and report back to members at the next ExCo.

Action 13: General Manager 9. STRATEGY GROUP (No paper). John Gale explained that this section would report on the conclusions and next steps only as full discussions would take too long. The programme has now reached the mid-point of the current term of operation, and the mid-term strategy was reviewed by the ad hoc strategy group. The ad hoc committee found that the current strategy was still suitable and no changes are necessary. The first element discussed was the revision of the IEA GHG logo, and the decision was made by the committee that the proposals generated by the IEA GHG team were unsuitable and that the General Manager should now approach professional designers to progress this.

Action 14: General Manager The group also discussed drawing up a document covering the principles of membership to provide more guidance for new members and sponsors. The General Manager will draft this document and distribute to members at the next ExCo meeting.

Action 15: General Manager The future strategy was also discussed, although not in detail. It was agreed to hold a facilitated strategy meeting in February 2009 to plan the next steps until 2020. Members asked who would be present at this meeting, and it was explained that the ad hoc committee would attend and report back to

12

GHG/09/03

the full ExCo. The selection of a facilitator was highlighted as vital as they would have to balance the known with the unknown, and John Gale explained that there were no ideas for a facilitator yet, and suggestions from members would be appreciated.

Action 16: General Manager The group also discussed the seating arrangements for the ExCo meetings as this could cause problems with the imminent increase in members, and it was decided to formerly adopt the current arrangement, affectionately known as the ‘Berlin’ arrangement after its first use at the Berlin ExCo whereby each member gets 1 seat at the inner ring, with the alternates seated behind the members. It was explained that there would be some flexibility with this arrangement at meetings with a lower attendance. Reporting was discussed, and electronic reporting has proven very popular with the exception of the ExCo folders which are still preferred as a paper hard copy. CD copies of technical studies will also be mailed to members. A request was made to mail the presentations 1 week before the meeting for review and this will be addressed.

Action 17: General Manager Eric Lysen asked John Gale to elaborate on the projects database, and John Gale explained that the database was extremely beneficial, but maintaining the content was hard. We rely on external input, but the intention is to move towards a vigorous annual update. Kamel Bennaceur suggested improving the interactivity of the programmes website with concepts such as discussion boards. John Gale explaining that there was an activity planned for 2009 to overhaul the websites and that this feedback would be taken into account. 10. COMPLETED ACTIVITES What Have We Learnt? Document GHG/08/39 refers. Tim Dixon and Neil Wildgust presented the latest progress on this study. Tim started by explaining the processes being used to determine what we have learnt from R&D projects. He explained the limits that were imposed on selecting projects to review, and these limits included size, timescale, injection and other factors. By the use of a structured questionnaire, data was obtained on the selected projects and this will be collated into an accessible format which will be updated at the next ExCo. Johannes Heithoff remarked that this activity was too late for the EC discussions, and the need for a published report on ongoing projects is urgent. He questioned whether we could use the outcome of this report before the next ExCo. Tim Dixon explained that the team will work as quickly as possible, but are hindered by relying on external organisations for data and information. He went on to caution that it is unlikely to be ready for the next ExCo, but the aim is to have a report ready for the Copenhagen meeting. Trygve Riis asked whether the existing list of 26 entries on the database was searchable and Tim Dixon confirmed that this was possible; a search on ‘large scale operational projects’ would obtain the desired result. John Wilkinson commented that there was a lot of information included on the US Regional Partnerships, and that it could be possible to get some feedback on similar activities from the US Regional Partnership programmes – this could ensure we are asking the right questions on our questionnaire. Tim Dixon confirmed that the evidence from the responses so far suggested that we were asking the right questions. Olav Karstad asked if we should include definite planned projects, e.g. Gorgon, rather than solely active projects. Many organisations or groups wouldn’t consider telling IEA GHG when commencing a project without prompting – solicitation of interest in advance could prove beneficial. Kelly Thambimuthu stated that finance is often the key issue of whether a project commences or not, and it is a very difficult issue to define as optimism often gets in the way of rational determinations. He

13

GHG/09/03

thinks the study is on the right track, and that there is benefit in only including active projects. John Gale concurred with this view, and explained that the scale of the task involved with including announced but not commenced projects could be hugely increased over the focus on active projects. He welcomed suggestions on how to improve the situation. Jay Braitsch explained that the Regional Partnerships have many projects soon to start, and thus aren’t included in this scope. He also suggested that lowering the threshold for injection amounts could give more benefits in some situations with regard to what we can learn. Nick Otter proposed that this study should be re-visited on a 2 yearly basis, and agrees with Jay Braitsch’s comments – this confirms we are going to see more activity so the repeat cycle should be kept short for this activity. He also raised concerns over the level of information available – what information can and can’t be shared? He suggested interaction with the ZEP on this could be beneficial. Thirdly, Nick Otter suggested that this activity be linked to the development of the IEA roadmaps which are looking to identify gaps. A consistency of approach is important, and this could be used to encourage projects to address the gaps identified by the roadmap exercise. John Gale commented that this work will feed into the IEA road map activity. Peter Petrov agreed with the previous comments that it would be useful to have the results of this now, but this is not possible. He felt that it was a good time to carry out this type of activity and it will be beneficial to many groups. The EC DG TREN has issued a call for proposals for the establishment of a co-ordination network for CCS demonstration projects in the European region. Tim stated that IEA GHG have been approached by three consortia to be involved in their bids. IEA GHG had sent MoU to these parties. Peter commented it is necessary to check the legal aspects as EC contributions can’t be used to contribute to projects they fund.

Action 18: General Manager Neil Wildgust went on to describe the process used in the studies section of “what have we learnt”. He explained that IEA GHG has completed around 150 studies, and the decision was made to initially focus on the storage studies completed since 2004. The review highlighted key learning points the studies generated and the knowledge gaps identified. This will form part of a database of studies in the future, and an example of this is available, but it had not yet been fully populated. John Topper shared the experiences of the IEA CCC in similar activities as they compiled an encyclopaedia of coal use going back through their past activities and studies. This encyclopaedia is available on-line and receives approximately 10,000 hits a month. Neil Wildgust thanked John Topper for this, and stressed that initially the plans were for this database to only be available in the member’s area of our website. Eric Lysen suggested that we compromise between the members section of the website and the publically accessible section, by making the short study summary available to the public, but keeping the technical part in the members section. This was agreed by the members and the programme team.

Action 19: General Manager John Wilkinson highlighted the importance of knowledge gaps, of which there will be an extensive list. He pointed out that although some knowledge gaps may appear to be quite simple, they can contribute to strategy groups in future planning activities, and they are core to many regulatory processes and aspects. Johannes Heithoff stated that the McKinsey report cost data relating to CO2 storage may give benefit to the study. John Gale explained that he had circulated the report to members, and pointed out that within the European region, the single greatest source for injectivity data is from Sleipner, and the high injectivity rates attained at Sleipner could distort the regional figures as other sites are unlikely to see as high injectivity. Jay Braitsch further commented on the issues with costs, and said that issues with costs across studies are always present but somehow we need to achieve a consistency of approach. One potential would be to set up centres of excellence so cost data would come from one source, ensuring consistency across the board.

14

GHG/09/03

Action 20: General Manager Analogues for CCS Document GHG/08/40 refers. Tim Dixon described this report, and although the report is complete, the glossy brochure has not yet been completed, this is planned to be ready and printed early in 2009 if not before. John Carras commented that it was a very important report, and it could possibly be used as part of a broader communication strategy for increased public awareness. John Gale agreed that this is something that could be looked into in more detail, however Tim Hill cautioned that thought must be given with regard to the public availability of the report as it uses language that could be misinterpreted by a non-scientific audience. John Gale explained that he was aware of the concerns of some members in this respect, and confirmed that we would forward the report to members for comments before publication would take place.

Action 21: Members Peter Versteegh expressed the view that the questions and answers contained in the report were quite clear, and thinks it’s fairly reassuring. He also suggested we look at addressing the uncertainties and that this could be seen as a strong favourable piece in the argument for CCS. Tim Dixon suggested that the report already addressed the gaps and highlights what we don’t yet know. John Gale explained that these were similar comments to those that were made regarding the Natural Emissions report, and that care would be taken to focus on information freely available in the public domain. Several members then questioned whether it could be made available for electronic download by teachers and university lecturers, and maybe set up as a Wikipedia entry. These suggestions will be considered when the brochure is complete and comments have been received from members.

Action 22: General Manager CCS and CDM Document GHG/08/41 refers. Tim Dixon reported on this ongoing study. It was agreed at the 33rd ExCo in Berlin to revise the proposal slightly in line with comments received there, and to try to get the report ready for the Poznan meeting in December 2008. Tim Dixon explained that good progress had been made, and the team were in the process of refining the results at present, hoping to get it completed in time for Poznan, but couldn’t give a final definitive deadline for the report. Kelly Thambimuthu questioned whether we expected more or less cost increases in this area compared with other CCS areas, and Tim Dixon explained that there may be additional costs, but without figures to back it up this could not be accurately determined; however it is unlikely to prove a showstopper. Markus Wolf suggested that the specified target of 12Mt until 2012 was extremely optimistic; the anticipated technical problems make this an unachievable target, and secondly that the methodology for the European arena would be unlikely to fit other regions. Tim Dixon agreed with these comments, and explained that they were working to refine these numbers. Bill Reynen suggested dissemination of the results via a Wikipedia style entry, although caution was urged with the Wikipedia medium as the data is publicly accessible, and anyone can access the data and change it – it would therefore require constant vigilance and checking, and would probably need our name disassociated with it to avoid recriminations if the data were altered without our knowledge. Rachel Crisp expressed the view that it was useful to feed all of this into the discussions regarding the post 2012 framework and Poznan; it represents a big challenge, but is a worthwhile exercise. Fuel Cells for Combined Heat and Power Document GHG/08/42 refers. Mike Haines began by explaining the principles of CHP and energy demands and efficiency differences by global region. Kelly Thambimuthu said he had heard arguments that fuel cells are slow coming to market, and it doesn’t appear that the subject of this report will speed this process up at all. Markus Wolf questioned the economic basis and ability to change electricity / heat ratio according to demand. Mike Haines explained that if the grid is decarbonised CHP doesn’t work as an option for mitigating emissions. The cost to consumer is higher

15

GHG/09/03

than the cost to the producer, therefore it is cheaper to decarbonise at the source than at the end user location. Sven-Olov Ericson questioned some aspects of the report, and highlighted the systems analysis elements; the study shows abatement costs as more expensive than costs associated with other abatement options, and in the context of this study, it should be termed as efficiency rather than abatement. Small scale CHP must be lead by heat demand, and therefore there must be a heat storage element, leading to predictably minimal costs. The real issue is the presentation method, which should look at CCS in a systems analysis scope. Mike Haines answered this by stating that the report shows low power station efficiency, and looks at a global average. This shows that as efficiency improves the need for local power generation decreases. Kelly Thambimuthu suggested that these were valid points and that the overview should be revised to incorporate these elements and re-issued to members for approval. Illka Savolainen suggested that we also consider the likely decrease in emissions will change the system – energy efficiency in housing is becoming more focussed, thus potentially reducing the opportunities for CHP usage. Sven-Olov Ericson suggested that it could be worth expanding this concept and looking at multiple studies to fully cover the topics involved.

Action 23: General Manager Novel Approaches Document GHG/08/44 refers. Mike Haines presented the results of this study, and explained that the process had involved hiring an innovation consultant to preside over an intense innovation workshop to find alternative approaches. Kelly Thambimuthu questioned the performance and development of shift catalysts, and whether this was another term for syngas catalysts. Mike confirmed this and Kelly went on to suggest that they don’t really work well as they are subject to reaction equilibrium limitations. Kelly expressed surprise that the combined aspect of shift reaction and membrane separation of the reaction products was not covered as it makes a big difference by breaking the equilibrium for noticeable improvements. John Wilkinson asked if we have a defined baseline to improve on and Mike confirmed that there were a couple, including electricity cost and capture costs to see if there is a wider commercial attractiveness. Mike also commented that the report issued on novel evaluations looked at various novel approaches, but they were as yet uneconomical. Quite often it seems that as soon as a novel approach becomes economically viable, it becomes proprietary data and therefore restricted in its availability. Olav Karstad reflected that whenever we looked at engineering processes, we were also hitting the same barriers of ‘ownership’ of data, and suggested some style of competition to generate data on novel processes. Mike replied that a full scale study on a specific process is tricky to justify if the process is undefined and turns out to be unsuitable or not to work. Jay Braitsch outlined a similar situation experience whereby research was aimed at novel ideas, but all the proposals received weren’t novel. They then engaged the National Academy of Science to contact a wider audience and this succeeded in reaching an audience outside of the CCS area, which proved necessary in order to discover truly novel ideas. Sven-Olov Ericsson suggested changing the terminology of ‘biomass and other wastes’ to ‘biomass and wastes’ as this makes biomass sound like a waste product. Mike Haines agreed to adjust this in the final version of the overview.

Action 24: General Manager John Topper referred to a report shortly to be available from the IEA Clean Coal Centre which covered innovative technologies relating to post-combustion capture. This is largely based on materials acquired from IEA GHG and its network and will be published as a joint report and available to both

16

GHG/09/03

sets of members. The report includes aspects on calcium carbonation loops, alkaline methods, molecular sieves and a whole range of membrane technologies which could prove a useful companion report to this one. Peter Versteegh was very interested in the IEA CCC report, and went on to ask whether the IEA GHG report looked at the prospects for calcium and other ions, but John Gale explained that the study was only a conceptual study, and therefore didn’t go into that level of detail. Cal Cooper suggested that the ExCo had the opportunity to influence policy, and if current capture technologies don’t look promising, then we need to focus on more novel concepts and be optimistic about the subject. Richard Rhudy suggested that before following the recommendations from the study, it should be thoroughly checked that the recommendations aren’t already being looked at in other areas by other groups to check the ideas are truly novel.

Action 25: General Manager CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry Document GHG/08/46 refers. John Davison reported on this completed study. Bill Reynen commented on the draft report, and was slightly perplexed by the apparent contradictions regarding oxyfuel combustion technologies and its readiness for deployment, but John Davison explained that this referred to its deployment in the cement industry, and this is not deemed as ready for implementation. Kelly Thambimuthu highlighted the risks involved with oxyfuel combustion using a kiln type operation with respect to the higher level of risks of leaks and John Davison agreed but expressed the suggestion of operators that there are methods of avoiding the risks, by the use of secondary skins and other such add-ons. John Topper expressed a curiosity regarding the calculations, the developing country model uses a new efficient Chinese plant, but taking India as an example, they are using very old, inefficient plants using diesel generators. It would be interesting to see if the introduction of plant renewal and the increase in efficiency from this could generate even greater benefit. Makoto Akai questioned whether as part of the IEA’s response to the G8 regarding developing a technology roadmap, as a result of industry participation there was a plan to include CCS with cement plants to combine and work with these activities. John Davison explained that there were no plans as yet, but associated involvement may make this a possibility. Kamel Bennaceur clarified that the IEA technological roadmap does plan to include the industrial sector, specifically the cement and steel industries.

17

GHG/09/03

Operational Flexibility of Power Plants with CCS Document GHG/08/47 refers, John Davison described this completed study. Kelly Thambimuthu questioned whether the report recommends one option over others, and John Davison confirmed that it was possible to choose any combination of options. Jay Braitsch stated that the Pacific Northwest group of the regional partnership programme was also working on a similar topic and have published a series of public domain reports on the subject. It is suggested that these groups are approached for input and comment. John Davison expressed uncertainty with regard to the level of detail these groups were going into, and that this would need investigating further. Johannes Heithoff stated that the third option described was preferable to the second as the second has a heavy dependency on the electricity markets, and different markets have different requirements. He went on to comment that the technology used when the first demonstration takes place will greatly influence the recommended choices. Sven-Olov Ericsson voiced similar concerns to Johannes Heithoff but had reached a different conclusion, that although interactions are sensitive, they are not important. Also it may be worth looking at a higher level of renewables as part of the package. Additionally, he expressed surprise that biomass without CCS was included as different plants can fill the same role. John Davison agreed, and explained that the slides were perhaps over-simplified. Markus Wolf questioned whether the study looked at clustered plants using the same CCS plants as this is a flexible operation method, but John explained that this was more difficult to include but could be looked at in the future. John Carras agreed with these comments, as it is an important and complicated study. He suggested that this study be developed into something looking at specific case studies which could lead to a greater understanding of the issues involved. John Davison explained that a similar activity was in the planning stages and would be dealt with at a later stage. Michael Madsen suggested that to avoid the huge demands on the energy system, a CHP system could be incorporated, although this would make the system even more complex. John Topper raised the point that in the past we’ve held meetings to determine the viability of such a network, and this should be checked first. Kelly Thambimuthu agreed with this suggestion. IEA GHG will contact relevant organisations to identify those active in this area and arrange a scoping workshop.

Action 26: General Manager Subsea Ecosystem Impacts Document GHG/08/48 refers. Toby Aiken presented the results of this study. Arthur Lee questioned whether the report looked at the formation of pools of CO2 on the ocean floor as this was not mentioned in the presentation, and it was confirmed that this is addressed in the report, but the report is a very large technical review, and reporting on the entire report in the ExCo meeting is unrealistic as it is too long. John Carras then questioned whether volcanic vents were addressed in the study, and Toby Aiken confirmed that they were, as indicated in the presentation. Tim Hill then asked whether this was a review study, and this was confirmed. It is a very long technical review, which addresses potential impacts of leaks, likely relevance of leaks, and reviews a great deal of practical research carried out around the world. Olav Karstad highlighted the study’s relevance under OSPAR, and also that a key element of the topic is how to detect a leak. He went on to comment that some work is being undertaken in Norway on the subject, and that the question that needs to be addressed is how do we make a project operable. John Gale commented that the IEA GHG held a meeting in conjunction with the British Geological Society on the topic of environmental impact assessments and the impact of leaks on ecosystems and that the report from this meeting will be available to members and could be useful in planning further work. Makoto Akai referred to some work underway in the oceans of Japan, concerning results of potential leakage to the seabed. This could help with the future direction of our work and should be investigated.

18

GHG/09/03

Kamel Bennaceur cautioned some of the wording within the overview, and John Wilkinson echoed this comment by suggesting care over the wording of the scenarios regarding the relative significance of 1% leakage. It should be clear that the report is not stating that all storage reservoirs will suffer at least 1% leakage. IEA GHG will review the overview and circulate to members before the report is published.

Action 27: General Manager Aquifer Storage – Development Issues Document GHG/08/49 refers, Neil Wildgust reported on this completed study. Some comments were addressed to the clarity of the image in the ExCo folders, but this was attributed to the fact that the folders are printed in monochrome, and the report contains a full colour version of the tables in question and these are clear to interpret. Tim Hill asked whether the report addressed brine displacement and the effects of multiple injectors, and Neil replied that although brine displacement is definitely covered, he would check the report and discuss with Tim off-line regarding the effects of multiple injectors. Arthur Lee asked Neil to expand on the reference to the EERC study, and it was explained that this was the Storage Coefficients study proposed and agreed at a previous meeting that was now underway and would be reported in the future. Bill Koppe asked whether we should look more towards storage costs to facilitate the G8 20 recommended demonstration projects, and this was answered by Neil and John Gale by saying that several studies being covered later should address this question. Kamel Bennaceur highlighted the benefit of undertaking a Middle East storage atlas, and suggested the University of Oman could be beneficial in this area. IEA GHG will follow this lead up.

Action 28: General Manager Gardiner Hill questioned the use of the term ‘proven technology’ for storage in aquifers, and this was agreed to be looked at reworded if necessary. John Wilkinson suggested that as both this study and the ‘what have we learnt study’ listed knowledge gaps, that we should map these onto a consequence analysis in order to justify the impact significance. This was agreed.

Action 29: General Manager 11. STUDIES IN PROGRESS AND STUDY PRIORITISATION Document GHG/08/50 refers. John Gale explained that the previous back-log of pending studies was greatly reduced and was now at a manageable scale whereby we can recommence proposals of new studies. However, with existing studies under way he felt that IEA GHG had the capacity to only start 4 new studies this time. Kelly Thambimuthu asked members to comment on the 4 studies selected as the highest priority according to the voting. Gunter Siddiqi questioned whether the injectivity study could include fracturing issues, and John Gale confirmed that this would be dealt with under a separate presentation. Bill Reynen questioned the apparent low voting and asked if we could vote at the ExCo meetings to get a better response rate. John Gale stated that 70% voting is considered adequate to determine the most popular studies. The current procedure provides adequate time for members to vote, but in response to some member’s views, this will now be reconsidered. John Gale commented that IEA GHG did not receive many ideas from members for new studies. John Gale stated that if members were happy with this then that was okay. Kelly Thambimuthu suggested that members could suggest broad ideas of perhaps one sentence and the team could then work this into a proposal. Arthur Lee suggested that the ‘what have we learnt’ study may generate more ideas from the programme team, and that this would be fine.

19

GHG/09/03

Incorporating Technical Improvements in CO2 Capture Document GHG/08/51 refers. John Davison presented this proposed study. John Topper explained that the view held by members of the post-combustion capture network is that there are now many technology suppliers and we have very limited information on some of them. Therefore there is an inherent problem in knowing what technical improvements are available. John Davison explained that the study would work from something we know to provide a sound baseline. Olav Karstad expressed the view that this was of minor interest and was not of major relevance. He suggested the study includes some work on predictions of future capital costs for plants and energy prices. Kelly Thambimuthu seconded this as a valid point, explaining that although some solvents can reduce long-term costs, the initial associated costs can increase. John Davison confirmed that costs implications would be incorporated within the study scope. Kelly asked members to unanimously approve the study, and this was agreed. Water Usage Document GHG/08/52 refers. Stanley Santos presented this proposed study. Kelly Thambimuthu suggested that the Shell gasification technology offers variation, but Stanley stated that the study was not looking at that, but rather was starting from IEA GHG’s previous work on the topic. John Topper explained that this was looking to provide a counter-argument to the information distributed by Greenpeace, but was also looking at areas where water supply is an issue, and therefore options of dry-cooling would be included in the study. Kelly Thambimuthu asked members to unanimously approve the study, and this was agreed. Injectivity Improvements Document GHG/08/53 refers. Neil Wildgust presented this proposed study. Tim Hill asked whether the study would look at instance of well failures as well, and Neil confirmed that the scope would incorporate the current TNO study as well to ensure all aspects are covered. Isabelle Czernichowski-Lauriol added that injectivity was a very big issue, especially when moving from pilot scale to demonstration scale projects. The scope should therefore include an additional factor, that of chemical effects, as they can have a great influence in short time periods. France have two research projects looking at injectivity, and these should be contacted with regard to input. Bill Reynen suggested that for this and future studies we look to standardisation of data. This could be presented as a study proposal in itself. Bill also suggested that effects of geothermal variance should also be incorporated, although Kelly Thambimuthu cautioned that geothermal concepts were tricky due to potentially high energy requirements. Kamel Bennaceur also suggested that the description of work should incorporate geomechanical issues, and this was agreed. Neil Wildgust also suggested that we could try to include fracturing in the scope if possible. Gabriel Marquette expressed his support of the study, and suggested that site characterisation be taken into account, and also that an aspect of the study looks specifically at injectivity into aquifers. Kelly Thambimuthu asked members to unanimously approve the study and this was agreed. Quantification of Leakage Document GHG/08/54 refers. Tim Dixon presented this proposed study. Kamel Bennaceur suggested the team liaise with the EC CO2REMOVE project, and John Gale explained that the IEA GHG were already partners in the project, so were aware of the activities potential contribution. Peter Petrov asked whether the study would be dealing solely with storage or with transport as well, Tim Dixon explained that at the current stage, storage was the main focus. Isabelle Czernichowski-Lauriol explained that CO2GeoNet were involved with similar activities, and could therefore be a potential contractor. Kelly Thambimuthu asked members to unanimously approve the study, and this was agreed.

20

GHG/09/03

Many members then commented and discussed the Sustainable Development proposal that keeps failing to obtain the necessary votes for approval, despite some members being very keen for the study. Cal Cooper summarised the issues with it by saying that the term ‘sustainability’ worries some organisations, and we should rename this to avoid these concerns, or alternatively we should hold an expert workshop to address the issues and produce a short workshop report from this. John Gale agreed that the workshop format could work, and the team would look towards this concept and develop it.

Action 30: General Manager 12. STUDIES TO BE RECONSIDERED FOR FUTURE VOTING & MEMBERS IDEAS

FOR STUDIES (No paper). John Gale explained that this had been covered in part in Section 11. Members agreed to reintroduce the top 6 proposals from those not accepted at this meeting into the next voting round. 13. NETWORK MEETINGS Document GHG/08/55 refers, and Brendan Beck reported on the Joint Network meeting, the Finance Meeting and Tim Dixon on the Environmental Impacts Workshop. The Joint Network Meeting presentation raised no questions from members. The Finance Meeting raised several comments from members, starting with Kelly Thambimuthu who stated that it is apparent that the different groups involved do not understand the problems encountered by the other groups, and that no effort was made to understand and work through these issues. Creative thinking is needed to work through these issues. Arthur Lee reported that the workshop was very good, but corrected that AIG were not part of the panel discussion. Also, one key message from financers was that there would be no investment without the prospect of a return. This must be realised in order to move forward. Fuad Siala asked if there was any update regarding the recent financial situation, and whether we could work on development of financing CCS in developing countries. Brendan and Kelly answered that we could, but would need more clarity from the CDM discussions first. Rachel Crisp expressed a genuine interest if the view of investors has changed following the current credit crisis, and agrees that developing countries must be looked at but understands that the CDM needs clarifying first. Kelly Thambimuthu suggested that the possibility of a recession could aid development as we have capacity without demand; he suggested this be monitored. Richard Rhudy questioned the comments that investors are not interested and suggested that the return on any investment would be present. Brendan explained that the thoughts of the investors were that the surety of return was not great enough. Kamel Bennaceur suggested the team look at the recent Dutch work on capacity building in Africa and the recent meeting to discuss the direction of CDM/CCS. The notes of these meetings are available and IEA GHG will follow this up.

Action 31: General Manager Jürgen-Friedrich Hake expressed concern that the outcomes described were very general, and questioned whether there was a more defined report available. John Gale explained that two detailed reports had been sent to members. Arthur Lee clarified that the comments regarding investors had not been followed up, and no direct approach had yet been made to investors. Rachel Crisp clarified her earlier comments, and explained she was happy with the IEA GHG input on CCS/CDM to the Poznan meeting, and that the focus was now moving to the post 2012 world. She suggested that CDM was possibly not the best tool for developing countries CCS activities at this time.

21

GHG/09/03

Gardiner Hill asked whether academics were involved with the meeting, and also policy writers, suggesting that outreach to the relevant groups could be beneficial. John Topper commented that in the view of the IEA CCC, input from the insurance industry is extremely beneficial to the group, and the quote from the insurers was that if the risks can be broken down and quantified, then CCS would be an insurable operation under insurance plans that are already in existence. John Topper also highlighted the fact that this was not a network activity, it has been held twice, and will not necessarily be held a third time for a while. John Gale explained that the insurers were involved with the Risk Assessment network, which was the right home for the discussions. John Topper explained that at the time of the initial meeting, it was a unique event, but by the time of the second meeting, it was one of three or four similar events, suggesting that the IEA GHG may not be the best suited organisation to carry on these activities. The Environmental Impacts workshop was then discussed, and Richard Rhudy stated that the work carried out by ZERT did not represent a natural analogue, so is the activity looking at natural and engineered analogues? Tim Dixon confirmed that both were included, but the primary focus would be on natural analogues. There was a suggestion that the workshop be held for a second time in 18-24 months. Richard Rhudy also mentioned that the ZERT work also addressed impacts of leaks on water and questioned whether this was looked at in the workshop. Tim Dixon confirmed that groundwater impacts were included. Tim Hill suggested that the workshop needs to link to how the information is used and incorporation of a broader scope; are emission rates analogous to anticipated storage leaks? This has to be realistic to hold benefit. Arthur Lee suggested that a larger workshop should also focus on other impacts. John Wilkinson commented that the discussions seemed to focus on detection, and could expand to include signal processing to cut out background noise, resulting in a clearer indication of a CO2 leak. Isabelle Czernichowski-Lauriol suggested that CO2GeoNet could co-host a second meeting at a natural analogue site with IEA GHG.


14. OXYFUEL NETWORK – CO2 PURITY – TECHNICAL REVIEW Documents GHG/08/45 refers. Stanley Santos presented an update on this activity, and confirmed that the report would be ready soon, and would be distributed to members at that time. 15. PROPOSAL FOR NEW NETWORK ON CHEMICAL LOOPING CAPTURE (CLC) Document GHG/08/56 refers. Mike Haines presented this paper, and asked the members to approve IEA GHG taking on this network activity. Kelly Thambimuthu started the discussions by questioning whether the topic was a narrow view with too small a focus area. Mike dealt with this by explaining that the network would look at other looping mechanisms as well, therefore broadening the scope. Seong Jegarl informed Mike that KEPRI were performing CLC with capture and the project results demonstrated an ability to contribute expertise to this area, and Mike accepted this, and promised to pass on the offer to the network group. Kelly Thambimuthu commented that the University of Newcastle in Australia was also active in this area and could partake in the network activities. Fuad Siala questioned the claim that there were no costs to the IEA GHG programme, and Mike explained that although there was a small charge for food and refreshments, the venue was free, so no financial obligations would rest with IEA GHG. It is possible if the network grew, there could be a small fee, but it would also generate costs. John Gale explained that all the IEA GHG networks aim to be cost neutral, and overall the system works. This network is small and will grow, but it is a key area, and there is the possibility that in the future it could merge into the CO2 Capture Network. Nick Otter highlighted that this was an emerging technology and has great potential and should be supported. Members agreed, and the network was approved.

22

GHG/09/03

16. SUMMER SCHOOL Document GHG/08/57 refers, Brendan beck gave an overview of the Summer School activities. Rachel Crisp asked whether there was any attempt to follow up its success by monitoring the progression of students into employment in the CCS area. John Gale explained that it was too early for this, although indications show that general interest has been raised. Trygve Riis asked how participants were selected and Brendan Beck explained that the initial recommendations come from the membership of the programme, articles in Greenhouse Issues and the IEA GHG website, and that word of mouth has also proved beneficial. Students are asked to submit a CV and endorsement from their professor and 1 page letter explaining how attendance would benefit them. Richard Rhudy asked if we distribute materials and presentations, and Brendan confirmed that they were already on our website. Arthur Lee commended the effort to maintain contact and track any developments of students gaining careers in CCS. Kamel Bennaceur suggested expanding to the Middle East and Africa, highlighting the ASDF as a good group to communicate with regarding further participation. Gabriel Marquette asked whether the current level of attendance of approximately 60 students was the maximum limit or whether there was the opportunity to expand. Brendan answered that the current level of attendance works very well, and any plans to expand would need reviewing carefully. Jürgen-Friedrich Hake congratulated Brendan and the IEA GHG team for the success of the Summer School, and Kelly thanked Canada and Germany for hosting the events to date. 17. IEA GHG INTERACTIONS WITH IEA REGULATORS NETWORK Document GHG/08/58 refers. Tim Dixon presented this paper, and members were happy with all the information. No questions were raised. 18. MEMBERS ACTIVITIES No papers were submitted, and no presentations made. 19. DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS Document GHG/08/59 refers. John Gale outlined the dates and locations of the next meetings, as follows:

the 35th ExCo will take place in Brisbane, Australia from the 21st to the 24th April 2009, the 36th ExCo will take place from the 7th to the 9th of October 2009 in Zurich, Switzerland

hosted by SFOE and Alstom and the 37th will take place in Spain in Spring 2010 hosted by CUIDEN.

There was a short discussion regarding the 38th ExCo, which was scheduled to be held alongside GHGT-10 in Amsterdam, and it was suggested that this be moved a short time away from the conference, but generally members prefer the meetings to run concurrently as travel arrangements for non-Europeans are easier to accommodate. Kelly Thambimuthu thanked the US DOE for hosting the meeting, which he commended as very successful and declared the meeting closed.

23

GHG/09/04


CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES

Kevin McCauley, B&W requested the following changes: Those Present – George Farthing, B&W was not present at the meetings Item 7 – “exacerbated” seems harsh, maybe just say “including” Item 8 – in the last paragraph, maybe add what the dates are for the UK Year and the Membership Year Item 10 – should there be a reference here to “GHG/08/39” Item 11 – injectivity improvements, maybe say “fracturing” instead of “fracking” These corrections were made as requested. Members are asked to formally approve the minutes.

25

GHG/09/05


LIST OF ACTIONS AND STATUS

Introduction The status of actions from the last meeting is presented below. In order to save time at the meeting, this information will not be presented but members are welcome to ask questions about any item.

Action No.

On Action Status

1 General Manager Investigate other IEA IA’s actions on Biofuels, and determine scope for IEA GHG to collaborate.

Outstanding

2 General Manager Supply guidelines of points to make in letter supporting IEA GHG appeal against VAT decision.

Not yet actioned

3 General Manager Expedite procedures for CIAB’s membership as a sponsor. Done 4 General Manager Expedite procedures for JGC Corporation membership as

a sponsor. Done

5 General Manager Expedite procedures for ENEL membership as a sponsor. Done 6 General Manager Amend procedures with regard to extending time limit for

report review to 1 month with a 3 week reminder. Done

7 Members Suggest topics for newsletter articles, or supply articles on members activities.

In-hand

8 Kamel Bennaceur Supply names of possible Summer School participants from Middle East.

Outstanding

9 Members Members interested in hosting GHGT 11 should make there interest known to the General Manager.

In-hand

10 General Manager Sign Memorandum of Understanding with CO2GeoNet. Done 11 General Manager General Manager to become involved as lead author in

CCS chapter in forthcoming IIASA GEA Assessment Report, and to participate in the IARU International Scientific Congress on Climate Change.

In-hand

12 General Manager Adjust budget in line with UK tax year. Done 13 General Manager Investigate the best way to bring membership year in line

with UK tax year. Done

14 General Manager Contract graphic designer to re-brand the IEA GHG image.

In-hand

15 General Manager Draft a document outlining principles of membership for new members and sponsors.

Done

16 General Manager Select facilitator for facilitated strategy meeting in February 2009.

Done

17 General Manager Mail presentations for ExCo meetings 1 week in advance for members to review and prepare.

Done

18 General Manager Check legal aspects of involvement in CCS demonstration network regarding EC member contributions.

Done

19 General Manager Segregate ‘What Have We Learnt’ results into public access and members access sections on website.

In-hand

20 General Manager Investigate possibility of setting up centres of excellence for cost data to achieve consistency.

In-hand

27

GHG/09/05

21 Members Provide feedback on analogues report when distributed regarding language use.

Done

22 General Manager Consider use of Wikipedia to distribute analogues report. Done 23 General Manager Distribute revised Fuel Cells study for members

comments and approval. Done

24 General Manager Adjustment of terminology in ‘Novel Approaches’ study to not suggest biomass is a waste product.

Done

25 General Manager Check suggestions from ‘Novel Approaches’ study are not being addressed elsewhere.

Done

26 General Manager Contact relevant bodies working in CHP area to organise possible scoping workshop for further activity.

In-hand

27 General Manager Revise overview of ‘Subsea Ecosystem Impacts’ Study and re-circulate to members for comments before publishing.

Done

28 General Manager Investigate possibilities of University of Oman being involved in Middle East Storage Atlas activity.

Outstanding

29 General Manager Map knowledge gaps identified in studies onto consequence matrix to justify the significance of the impact.

In-hand

30 General Manager Develop concept of workshop to look into Sustainable Development as study proposal of interest but not selected by voting.

Done

31 General Manager Obtain and assess relevance of notes from meeting of the Dutch work in CDM/CCS in Africa.

Done

32 General Manager Organise workshop looking at Natural Analogues for CCS.

In-hand

28


OPERATING AGENTS REPORT

NOTES

29

GHG/09/06

IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME

35th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

PROGRESS REPORT Introduction This report provides a summary of activities completed since the last ExCo meeting (34th) held in Washington D.C. in November 2008. Some of the work in this period has focused on completing the GHGT-9 conference activities such as production of the summary report, the proceedings and the special issue of IJGCC. Also we had the Poznan COP meeting just after GHGT-9. This has meant that demands on staff member’s time have been high during the 5 month period since the last ExCo which also included the Christmas break. Adminstration/Staff issues Our efforts have been bolstered by as Andrea Lacey has now returned from maternity leave and will resume her duties on publications and help support the international research network activities. John Davison has also returned part time and we are actively been seeking a new team member to bolster the capture team. We have a graduate secondee starting in March 2009 for three months, Robert Strube from the University of Florence in Italy who will work with Stanley Santos. He is 100% funded from the EC Mont Carlo research fund. IEA GHG is also discussing a possible 3 month secondment with Monica Lupion of CUIDEN our Spanish members. IEA GHG is interested in attracting secondees to work with the Programme and if members have any suggestions for secondees we would welcome them Participation in the Programme There continues to be interest in membership of the Programme and opportunities are taken at every chance to promote the Programme to interested parties. Since the last meeting; SANERI on behalf of South Africa has formally joined as a contracting party. CIAB have also completed formalities and joined as a sponsor as have JGC Corporation. The formalities of ENELs membership are well advanced and it is hoped that these will be complete by the time of the ExCo meeting. At the 33rd ExCo meeting Brazil was invited to join. Regular contact with CEPAC, Brazil has been maintained but full membership is progressing slowly. EnBW, a German Utility expressed interest in joining the Programme as a sponsor at GHGT-9 and has followed up that interest since. An invitation to attend the 35th ExCo was not made to EnBW. It was decided to await the outcome of the member’s discussion on guidelines for new members (see paper GHG/09/12) before inviting EnBW to attend an ExCo. Outline terms and conditions for membership were provided to IIE, Mexico who attended the last meeting as observers. We hope to bring news on the status of their interest to the meeting. Petrobras of Brazil and Bellona, a Norwegian NGO, have also expressed their interest in joining the Programme these discussions are ongoing. IEA GHG has been in contact with the IEA Liaison office, which has recently been established in China to help promote Chinese membership of the Programme.

31

GHG/09/06

Progress on delivery of the technical Programme a) Technical Studies A summary of the status of studies is presented at the time of drafting this paper an updated summary will be presented at the ExCo meeting Studies in progress Studies that are expected to be published 34th and 35th meetings, studies that will be underway at the time of the 35th meeting and studies that are outstanding are summarised in the tables below. Table 1 Studies published since the 34th ExCo meeting Title Contractor Report

number Publication

date Fuel cells for combined heat and power FZJ 2008/11 November

2008 Novel approaches to improving capture Innovaro 2008/10 November

2008 Aquifer storage development issues CO2CRC 2008/12 December

2008 CCS and CDM

ERM 2008/13 December

2008 Operating flexibility of power plants with CCS

University of Waterloo

2008/TR1 March 2008

CO2 pipeline transmission costs Gastec 2008/16 April 2008 Table 2 Studies being reported Title Contractor Publication date Assessment criteria – TAG EPRI March 2009 Removal of impurities from CO2 Advantica

May 2009 Assessment of sub-sea ecosystem impacts MBARI April 2009 Safety considerations for CCS HSL May 2009 Improved solvent scrubbing processes SINTEF May 2009 Prospects for storage of CO2 in gas fields Poyry

April 2009 In addition, to these studies a joint report with IEA CCC entitled; Carbon Capture - solid sorbents and membranes will be reported to members. This is a follow on review to the one on post combustion capture produced in 2007 (Report No. 2007/15) Table 3: Studies underway Title Contractor Scheduled

publication date Site Characterisation Criteria ARC June 2009 Long term integrity of storage – well abandonment

TNO June 2009

Prospects for storage of CO2 in EOR ARI June 2009 Storage capacity coefficients EERC June 2009 Best practise guidelines on site characterisation DNV JIP July 2009 CCS Life Cycle Analysis – Literature review Jülich Research

Institute August 2009

Use of biomass with CCS – part 1: combustion processes

Foster Wheeler October 2009

32

GHG/09/06

Corrosion and selection of materials for CCS Innetech November 2009 Building the pipeline infrastructure Element Energy December 2009 Retrofit and repowering with CCS IC Consulting December 2009 Impacts of high concentrations of SO2 and SO3 and CO2 capture systems

Doosan Babcock March 2010

Table 4: Studies out to tender Title Proposal number Evaluation of the water usage and loss of power plants with CO2 Capture

34-3

Injection Strategies for CO2 Storage Sites 34-4 Quantification techniques for CO2 leakage 34-6 Table 5: Studies outstanding awaiting start Title Proposal number Capture of lower fractions of CO2 32-2 Integration of post combustion CCS in existing industrial sites 33-5 Incorporating future technological improvements in existing CO2 capture plants

34-2

Regarding the study on capturing of lower fractions of CO2 a note has been circulated for comment by members. Initial comments received support IEA GHG position that a study is not warranted. The final outcome of this discussion round will be presented at the ExCo meeting. The General Manager is pleased to report that following earlier discussions to lengthen the time for review and to issue a reminder that members input to the overview review process has risen significantly. A guideline for members for the review process has been drafted and is now routinely being sent out with the overviews as requested by several new members at the 34th ExCo. Average study costs for 2008 were £58,900 slightly higher than previous years- in 2007 the average study price was £51,600. We are still experiencing good responses to requests for tender despite the economic situation. The Programme continues to receive a large number of requests for copies of its study reports, mainly from companies, students and institutions. Last year we had some 400 requests. This year to end of February we have received 44 report requests. b) Facilitating implementation The IEA GHG helps to facilitate the implementation of CCS by: participating in key meetings to support CCS policy /implementation strategies and by undertaking workshops or studies to provide information that is needed to assist implementation Meetings that IEA GHG has participated since the last ExCo include:

COP13/MOP. A report on the outcomes of this meetings and IEA GHGs related activities is given in paper GHG/09/32

CSLF Technical Group/PIRT. IEA GHG continues to co-operate with CSLF/PIRT. The last meetings of PIRT and the Technical group were held after the ExCo meeting on the 17th November in Washington. Tim Dixon attended both, and presented an update on IEA GHG activities, and specifically projects. The next meeting of PIRT was due on 4-5 February 2009 but this was postponed. The next meeting of the PIRT will be 31 March and the Technical Group will be 1-2 April 2009 in Oslo.

33

GHG/09/06

EU ZEP. IEA GHG is participating in the EU Zero Emission Platform (ZEP) in both the Policy and Regulation Task Force and now the Technology Task Force. Much of the current focus of the Policy and Regulation Task Force is on the EU’s CCS Directive and ETS Directive. Tim Dixon attended a Task Force meeting on 19 January and provided supporting evidence for ZEP discussions, including on ETS MRG and on CDM. This Task Force has close ties with the EC and hence the Directives and their details and implementation, and is enabling IEA GHG to assist the development of regulation. Neil Wildgust attended a meeting of the Technology Task Force on 13 January, which will work in 2009 to set out future EU R&D strategy to 2035. This Task Force provides input to the topics in EC’s R&D calls. Neil will continue to participate in Task Force.

IEA Network of CCS Regulators The launch meeting for this network was held in Paris on the 13-14 May 2008. IEA GHG has liaised with IEA to ensure that the network complements without duplicating IEA GHG activities in this area. There is an ongoing series of web-conferences. IEA GHG chaired the last one on 15 January which was on liability. A report on the outcomes of this network will be given in paper GHG/09/31. The next one is being arranged currently for March 2009, with input from IEA GHG on topics and speakers.

Capacity building activities have included:

Stanley Santos attended and presented at a UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) capacity Building workshop held in Indonesia in October 2008. IEA GHG is continuing to maintain contact with the FCO in Indonesia to see if there is any additional support that can be given in the future.

IEA GHG and CSLF organised a capacity building activity at GHGT-9, however this was not deemed to be a great success. It is not planned to continue to undertake such activities at future GHGT conferences. A student evening at the conference, however, was deemed to be a very successful and popular event and IEA GHG will look to undertake such an activity again at GHGT-10.

No workshops have been organized relevant to this area since the last ExCo. The summer school is also a key activity in this area. This year’s event will be hosted by CO2CRC and will be held in Melbourne, Australia in August 2009 with financial support from GCCSI. The detailed planning for this event and student registration is well under way. Details of IEA GHGs plan for dissemination of results from the summer school are given in Paper GHG/09/31. c) Facilitating international collaboration International Research Networks One network meeting has been held since the last ExCo meeting. This was the:

6th Risk Assessment workshop held in Melbourne, Australia and hosted by CO2CRC directly before this ExCo meeting.

In addition a workshop on modelling of CO2 storage was held in Orleans, France hosted by BRGM as held in February 2009. Details of this meeting are given in Paper GHG/09/28)

The presentations given at these workshops and the reports are available to members on the website: http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/networks. Members requiring log in codes should contact Sian Twinning, e-mail - [email protected] The network meetings planned to date for the rest of coming year include:

34

GHG/09/06

Network Date Venue Hosts Modeling workshop 10th-12th Feb 2009 Orleans, France BRGM Risk Assessment 16th-18th April 2009 Melbourne, Australia CO2CRC Well Bore Integrity 13th-14th May 2009 Calgary, Canada ARC/Theresa Watson

Associates Monitoring 2nd-4th June 2009 Tokyo, Japan Kyoto

University/AIST High temperature solid looping cycles

15th -17th September Oviedo, Spain CSIC

Capture 29th-30th Sept 2009 Regina, Canada University of Regina Members interested in attending any of these meetings should contact Sian Twinning, e-mail - [email protected] to be placed on the mailing list. In addition to these network meetings IEA GHG is also planning the Oxyfuel Combustion conference (OCC). OCC-1 will be held between 8th-10th Sept 2009, Cottbus, Germany. OCC-1 is sponsored by Vattenfall, Alstom, Air Products, CIUDEN and Linde. There will be site visits to Schwarze Pumpe Pilot Plant, Janschwalde Power Plant and Lignite Open Cast mine on the 11th of September.. A Steering and Organising Committee has been formed to oversee the development of the agenda. A panel of reviewers has been nominated by the Steering and Organising Committee. A special committee will handle and manage two panel discussion forums for the meeting. The deadline of submission of Abstracts was set on the 1st March 2009 and was extended to 3rd March, when 102 were abstracts submitted. It is expected to that the review process will be completed shortly and the announcement of the accepted papers for oral and poster presentations will be made by 18th May 2009. Practical R&D Activities IEA GHG is currently participating in three EC supported practical R&D projects which are: Dynamis, CO2ReMoVE and CO2SINK. A fourth project MOVECBM ended in late 2008. The results from the MOVECBM project are be presented in Paper GHG/09/30. IEA GHG is also participating in the Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring project an update on this project is presented in paper GHG/09/29. Other international, collaborative activities include: An International Performance Assessment Centre (IPAC) has been formed at the

University of Regina in Canada, supported by Shell. IEA GHG has been invited and accepted to act in an advisory capacity to the IPAC Board which has yet to be formulated. An initial meeting to help define IPACs operating activities was held in February 2009 which IEA GHG attended. It is intended that IPAC will co-ordinate its activities with the Risk Assessment network. As an initial action IEA GHG has agreed that a piece of work on risk assessment terminology that it is supported as part of the network will be taken on by IPAC and set up as a Wikipedia type web page to help promote the use of a common terminology between the risk assessment community.

CO2GeoNet. IEA GHG and CO2GeoNet have agreed to co-operate on areas of common interest under a memorandum of understanding. IEA GHG has been invited to attend and provide a key note lecture at the CO2GeoNet symposium to be held in March 2009.

35

GHG/09/06

d) Dissemination activities A summary of IEA GHGS dissemination activities since the last ExCo meeting is provided below: Web sites The Programme continues to support and maintain two web sites: www.ieagreen and www.co2captureandstorage.info and its web page on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEA_Greenhouse_Gas_R&D_Programme. The hits on the two main web sites in the last 5 months were: www.co2captureandstorage.info – 1,393,172 hits 69.2% viewing more than 1 page (cf

1,191,692 in the last quarter) www.ieagreen.org.uk - 894,187hits 75.4% viewing more than 1 page (cf 804,364 in

previous six months) The number of hits received continues to grow. We have initiated an activity to review overhaul and upgrade all our web sites we expect to have this complete by early 2010 Two issues of the newsletter have been published since the last ExCo meeting. The circulation list has now increased to 8186, due to the addition of delegates from GHGT-9. Some 1400 people are now on e-mail circulation. IEA GHG has engaged a designer to look at the layout for the newsletter with the aim of developing a newer design that can be implemented by late 2009/early 2010. IJGCC - the journal is increasingly popular as a source of published papers for conferences, projects and individuals. In 2009 the numbers of annual volumes will increase from 4 to 6 to meet increased demand. We hope to gain an Impact Factor at the end of this year. The first meeting of the Editorial Board for the journal will be held at the GHGT-9 conference. A fourth Associate Editor (Jim Dooley from PNNL, USA) will be added for 2009 to assist with paper handling and reduce the General Managers paper handling role. GHGT Conferences As members are aware GHGT-9 was the biggest GHGT conference held to date. The feedback from the conference has been excellent, the dinner at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum was particularly well received. We have also received through the questionnaire we sent out after the conference some positive comments that has been conveyed to those organising GHGT-10 to be taken on board in their planning activities. Since the conference: IEA GHG has worked with MIT to produce a conference summary report which has been

published electronically on the conference web site and sent to members. This report has been well received and it has been accepted that this should now be built into all future conferences as a key deliverable.

IEA GHG has worked with Elsevier to produce the public on-line proceedings for the conference and a CD copy of the proceedings for delegates.

Through the IJGGC a special issue based on selected papers will be produced, the organisation of this Special Issue is well in hand.

A separate paper taking the feedback from GHGT-09 and how that could feed into future conferences is given in Paper GHG/09/27 Planning for GHGT-10 is well underway.

36

GHG/09/06

Other conferences IEA GHG has been invited by the organisers Monitor Exchange to actively participate in the 8th Annual Conference on carbon sequestration and capture to be held in May 2009. IEA GHG have proposed organised a panel session based on the “what we have learnt study” IEA GHG has also been invited to participate in the annual EAGE (European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers) seminar on CO2 storage and become part of the organising group. Neil Wildgust will represent IEA GHG. The table overleaf provides a list of papers presented and presentations made at external conferences and workshops since the last meeting. Note: these are in addition to presentations given at GHGT-9 and at our own workshops. If members wish, copies of these presentations can be placed on the member’s pages on the Programme web site for future reference.

37

GHG/09/06

Date Venue Title Programme Team

Member 30th October 2008

Indonesia CCS National Workshop’ ) Jakarta, Indonesia

1.Current Status and Developments in Carbon Capture Technologies for Power Generation(What are the Challenges Involved)

Stanley Santos

2. What is the Role of CCS in the Power Generation Industry

6-7th November, 2008 CIAB, Plenary, Paris , France An overview of the activities of the IEA greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

General Manager

12th November 2008 IMechE Seminar on CCS, London, UK Regulatory developments ion CCS Tim Dixon 24th November 2008 UCD Urban Institute conference on

CCS, Dublin, Ireland EU Policy, ETS and CCS Tim Dixon

2-3rd December 2008 2nd Annual European Capture and Storage Summit

Latest developments in capture technology General Manager

10th-11th December 55th Meeting of WPFF, IEA, Paris, France

Overview of the activities of the IEA GHG Programme John Topper, on behalf of General Manager

15th December CCSA meeting, London, UK Update on Poznan outcomes Tim Dixon 20th January 2009 City University London Overview of CCS Brendan Beck 11th -12th Feb APGTF Seminar, London, UK Overview of storage regulations Tim Dixon

17th -18th Feb 2009 CIAB Associates, Washington DC USA Overview of the activities of the IEA GHG Programme General Manager 2nd -5th Marc h 2009 CO2Net East CCs workshop, Slovakia CO2 Capture from power plants Stanley Santos 9-12th March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Congress,

Denmark “What we have learnt from CCS demonstration projects” Tim Dixon

18-20th March 2009 Go2GeoNet Seminar, Venice, Italy International status of CCS. Tim Dixon

38

GHG/09/07


ANNUAL REVIEW 2008

An annual review for 2008 has been drafted, which as indicated by the title sets out a review of the programmes achievements for the past year. Th e text for the review has bee n agreed with the Chairman and Vice Chairmen. A new design for the annual review 2008 has been developed to give it a more modern image. A PDF version of the Annual Review 2008 will be distributed to members for com ment before the ExCo meeting. A draft proof of the re port will be m ade available for m embers attending the 35th ExCo meeting.

39

GHG/09/08


BUDGET 2008

Introduction The budget for 2008 as approved at the 33rd ExCo meeting is shown in the left-hand column below. It was prepared on the basis that year-on-year income and expenditure should be essentially in balance. The figures in the right-hand column are derived from the monthly management accounts. Members should note that the budget out turn for the membership year is based upon 2 different accounting practises. The first covered the periods December 2007 to March 2008 (4 months) and the second from April to November 2009 (8 months) after the accounting procedures has been substantially revised.

INCOME

2008 Budget (£)

Projected outturn (£)

Member subscriptions 1 330 300 1 334 420

Publications 2 000 0 Interest/exchange rate variations/Third parties

107 000 263 245

Other – sponsorship etc., 121 000 201 336 Total 1 522 300 1 799 0001

EXPENDITURE Staff and administration costs 514 500 492 835

Travel 150 000 135 564

Technical studies and other external contracts

593 500 608,415

Research Networks 34 000 162 813

Communications (including publications)

95 000 69 732

Supplies and services 69 200 113 678

Office: rent, rates, service charge, and 1-off move

38 500 31 363

Total 1 494 700 1 614 400

Income Member subscriptions are generally in line with budget targets. All members had paid their annual subscriptions.

1 Note: Income from GHGT-9 has not been included in this budget since the budget for GHGT-9 has not been closed yet. It is expected the final budget will be resolved before the meeting and a proposal to utilise that income will be presented to members at the ExCo meeting.

41

GHG/09/08

Receipts from sales of reports and GHGT conference proceedings: only a small number of reports/proceedings have been sold, the income appears under recovered expenses from third parties. The item Interest/Exchange rate variations/Third parties is based on interest gained from bank deposits, exchange rate variations and income from third parties: - including (i.e. delegate fees from network meetings) which includes income from European Commission research contracts. This figure was higher than predicted in the budget because of a combination of factors which include: changes made in the year to our banking procedures, high bank interest rates during the year and, more meetings organised than originally planned and it includes income from Elsevier for IJGCC and from BERR for Tim Dixons services. Note also included is a sum of money (£90k) from sponsors for the operation of GHGT-9 conference that will be paid by IEA GHG i.e. for the proceedings in March 2009 outside of this budget. In standard accounting practise this would have been accrued but as we are transitioning from one system to another it appears as income without the corresponding cost. Sponsorship monies were higher than originally predicted due in part to sponsorship money from WCI that came via IEA CCC for the financing meeting which was not originally budgeted for and other increases in sponsorship received for activities such as network meetings and the summer school etc., Expenditure Staff costs are slightly below budget. One staff member moved from 5 day to 3 day working during the year. Also some costs for specialist services originally placed in this budget line have been moved to services and supplies. The travel budget is somewhat lower than the budget provision. In the revised accounts travel excludes costs for ExCo meetings – these are now included in the meeting cost item otherwise this number would have been higher than budget. Technical studies are our main year-on-year expenditure. The numbers provided in the budget out turn are generally in line with the budget. Research Networks/Meetings will over spend compared to be budget line set at the 33rd ExCo. This was due in part to the fact that we undertook three more meetings than were originally budgeted for, and the costs for the meeting on finance flowed through IEA GHG’s books. We endeavour to operate in such a way that all network meetings are cost neutral. The item now also includes costs for ExCo meetings around (£40-45k per annum). ExCo costs have increased significantly in recent years. The Communications line item in the budget allowed for printing and distribution of 3 editions of the newsletter, electronic reports etc. This line item decreased this year due largely to changes made to procedures to reduce posting requirements and postage weights and the introduction of competitive tendering for printing and mailing services. Supplies and services budget covers office supplies and equipment such as: software and supporting services; insurance, accounting services, IT, and the annual audits of accounts. Computer renewal on a 4 year cycle averaging 3 computers/year were assumed. The costs are higher than in the original budget due to higher expenditure on; computers due in part to new staff arrivals, a one off charge for the installation of a new phone system in the office charges, additional publication material for GHGT-9, extra services for accounting reviews and personnel related issues etc., inclusion of IT support charges in the line item (originally charged to communications) and that some work had been outsourced (newsletter lay outing) to cover for maternity leave. The costs for office rent etc, are generally in line with the proposed budget. Summary: The budget will be essentially in balance at the end of the 2008 membership year, taking into account the costs for the GHGT-9 proceedings that will be incurred outside the budget year but in a real set of accounts would be accrued.

42

GHG/09/09


BUDGET FOR 2008/9

Introduction The budget proposed for the UK financial year 2008/9 (1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009 2008) is presented below. It was prepared on the basis that year-on-year income and expenditure should be essentially in balance.

INCOME

2008/9 Budget (£)

Contributions 1 505 000 Interest& exchange rate variations 50 000 Other (includes sponsorship, service fees and third part income

175 000

Total 1 730 000 EXPENDITURE Staff and administration costs 610 000 Travel 150 000 Technical studies and other external contracts 650 000 Meeting Costs 155 000 Communications (including publications) 50 000 Professional services (including IT and design) 40 000 Office equipment including computing 55 000 Office: rent, rates, service charge, and 1-off move 30 000 Total 1740 000

Notes on the proposed budget: Income The income is based on 42 members with JGC Corp, and ENEL joining as new contributing members in the year. No new members are allowed for because it is assumed that with the current economic crisis this may delay membership for new parties. Interest is earned on money in the bank which is placed on short fixed-term deposits in Treasury Accounts. Exchange rate variations have previously gone well in our favour. With the current economic situation this income stream has been reduced considerably over previous years. The ‘Other’ income, as budgeted, is based on projected recoveries of expenses for work done on EU projects in which IEA GHG participates and includes income from sponsorship for network meetings and the international summer school. This number is based on projected forecasts of income from 7 network meetings, 1 summer school and the oxyfuel conference. Expenditure Staff costs are based on 12 people (10 full-time and 2 part-time). This is an additional one person full-time compared to last year’s budget who we will recruit an additional staff member by mid way through the year. Annual salary increases based on UK RPI as of December 2008 and December 09 has been included in the budget. Salary and staff administration charges placed on IEA GHG by IEA Clean Coal Centre on behalf of IEA

43

GHG/09/09

Environmental Projects Ltd include a proportion of of John Topper’s time as well as routine payroll, pension, and other services provided by the Operating Agent are included. The travel budget covers the cost of travel by IEA GHG team members in support of the Programme. Expenses incurred include holding Executive Committee meetings, travel and accommodation expenses in presenting the work of the IEA GHG Programme at conferences, etc. Travel costs will be maintained at comparable levels to previous years despite the addition of a new staff member Technical studies are our main year-on-year expenditure. The number tabled is based on an estimate of actual costs that will be incurred for studies underway in 2008/9 (See paper GHG/09/06) Meetings costs are based on the number of events organised in the year (2 ExCos, 1 summer school. 7 workshops and the oxy fuel conference) and estimated are from cost data from last year’s meetings with an inflationary element included. With the exception of the ExCo meetings the summer school, meetings and oxy fuel conference have been designed to be cost neutral or make a modest profit. We have changed the modus operandi this year to try and unify our approach to these events; so that local sponsorship is collected by the host and this pays for local costs, IEA GHG only recovers the income from subscriptions to cover other costs such as travel costs for students at the summer school etc., The Communications line item in the budget allowed for printing and distribution of 4 editions of the newsletter “Greenhouse Issues”, 16 CD reports of technical studies and network meetings, and 3 public summary (glossy) reports. The cost also includes services by a designer for newsletter layouts that will transfer back to IEA GHG during the year. These were outsourced when Andrea Lacey was on maternity leave, Professional services include supporting services such as, insurance, accounting services, and the annual audits of accounts. This year this item includes charge for design services for a consultant to redesign of the newsletter, web sites and a new logo. Office equipment includes general office supplies and includes computer renewal on a 4 year cycle averaging 3 computers/year is assumed plus the cost for a new server. The last line item covers the costs (rates, rent and services) of the office accommodation Summary The proposed budget will be essentially in balance at the end of the subscription year. Action

Members are invited to accept the proposed budget for 2008.

44

GHG/09/10


FINANCIAL ISSUES

VAT Discussions have been continuing regarding the VAT situation as notified to members at the 34th ExCo meeting. A report on the VAT situation will be provided to members at the ExCo meeting. Bank accounts As reported at the last meeting due to the economic situation we have now set up an account with a second bank (HSBC) to hold a proportion of the member’s monies on deposit. We are currently holding the winding up fund in this account. The remainder of member’s money is held in our existing bank accounts with NatWest (part of the RBS group). We will continue to monitor the banking situation in the UK and if need be will move more money into the new account or diversify further. Membership year phasing. At the last ExCo members agreed to change the budgeting cycle to bring it in line with the UK tax year. Members then suggested that we tidy everything up and bring the membership year (currently December – November) invoicing in line with the UK tax year (April – March). The easiest time to expedite this change would be at the end of Phase 5 and start of Phase 6. The simplest way for IEA GHG to do this is to ask members for a one off payment in 2011/2012 of 4 months additional subscription money to take us from December 2011 to March 2012, then to begin invoicing for the subsequent years in April each year for the remaining 4 years of Phase 6. This could be completed by issuing one invoice in December 2011 for 16th moths then an annual invoice in April thereafter. Action

Members are invited to agree this change in invoicing practise during the transition from Phase 5 to Phase 6.

Note: any members that have difficulty with this change of invoicing arrangements arrangement should contact the General Manager as soon as possible.

45

GHG/09/11


STRATEGY PLANNING FOR PHASE 6.

At the 32nd ExCo meeting in Korea members agreed that there should be a small strategy planning group established to discuss the future strategy of the programme. The ad group had been formed after the ExCo meeting consists of:

• Kelly Thambimuthu, Chairmen of ad hoc group • John Carras, Australia • Arthur Lee, Chevron • Tim Hill, EoN • Richard Rhudy, EPRI • Jürgen Freidrich Hake, Germany • Makoto Akai, Japan • Erik Lysen, Netherlands • Gabrielle Marquette, Schlumberger • Helle Birte Mostad, StatoilHydro • Jay Braitsch, USDOE • John Gale, IEA GHG

The ad hoc group had met first before the 33rd ExCo meeting (Berlin) to agree it’s terms of reference and then had now met twice more; just before the 34th ExCo meeting (Washington D.C) and then in Palo Alto, California in February 2009. The group will meet again before the 35th ExCo meeting in Brisbane in April 2009. The ad hoc group has now agreed the following:

1. A new seating plan for future ExCo meetings based on the so called “Berlin arrangement” first tried at the 33rd ExCo meeting in Berlin in 2008. In this arrangement (to be used at large meetings) only one member delegate will sit at the main table, alternate members and observers will sit behind the member delegate but are still allowed to speak. It was agreed that this arrangement could be relaxed at meetings where there is low member attendance. This arrangement was considered to have been effective at both the 33rd and 34th ExCo meetings and no complaints had been raised by members.

2. A set of guidelines for both new contracting party and sponsor members for member’s

consideration (see paper GHG/09/12). In light of members earlier concerns it is reemphasised again that the guidelines would not affect current members, but would just act as a reference document for the General Manager in assessing, and proceeding with, new membership enquiries.

3. A draft strategy document for Phase 6 for members consideration (see paper GHG/09/13). The document sets out the role and objectives of the programme and a plan for future activities until 2020.

Next Steps At the ad hoc group meeting before the 35th ExCo meeting the group will consider the following:

1. The dispersion of resources between the key tasks, 2. The network activities currently underway and identify any gaps, 3. The audience(s) IEA GHG will aim to disseminate its information to.

It is planned to complete the strategic planning activity by the 36th ExCo meeting on October 2009. The information will then be available to be used in the GHG IA reapplication to the IEA

47

GHG/09/11

that needs to be complete for the autumn 2011 CERT meeting or earlier if possible. The activity to develop the application will need to commence in mid 2010 i.e. about one year ahead of the reapplication. Once members have agreed to outline strategy the Programme team will commission a graphic designer to develop ideas for a new logo and rebranding of publications/web sites etc., with the aim of having the rebranding exercise complete by GHGT-10 in September 2010. Some preliminary work in this area has already commenced.

48

GHG/09/12


GUIDELINES FOR NEW MEMBERS

Background In recognition of the increased interest in membership of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG), these guidelines have been developed for new1 members (Contracting Parties and Sponsors) as a mechanism for the General Manager to screen interested parties. As a general guideline IEA GHG will endeavour to maintain a balance between Contracting Parties and Sponsors. These guidelines should not be interpreted in such a way that interested parties (Contracting Parties or Sponsors) that do not fall within these guidelines are rejected out of hand. In this case, the General Manager would refer these as special cases to the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen for discussion before proceeding to acknowledge/respond to their inquiry. Membership Categories There are two categories of membership which are: Contracting Parties and Sponsors. A Contracting party is typically a country member, or a Government organisation, or can be consortium of country members endorsed by their respective Government. Contracting Parties can nominate the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen and can vote on membership issues. Contracting party subscription fees are based on 4 bands which relate to their annual CO2 emissions2. Subscriptions for Developing Countries are also based on these bands but are pro rated based on their GDP (PPP) compared to their OCED average GDP (PPP). Sponsors are typically companies. Sponsors cannot nominate the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen and can vote on membership issues. Sponsor subscriptions are based on a standard flat rate annual fee. Membership Guidelines The following guidelines apply:

For Contracting Parties: i) All IEA and OECD Member countries are allowed to join. ii) The developing countries identified under the IEA NEET3 initiative, (currently – Brazil,

China, India, Mexico, South Africa and Russia) will be allowed to join. iii) Non IEA/OECD countries would be considered only if they have national plans to reduce

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and have in place/or are planning R&D programmes to research mitigation.

iv) Developing Countries other than those covered by IEA NEET would be considered only if they have national plans to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and have in place/or are planning R&D programmes to research mitigation.

For Sponsors New sponsors should fall into the following categories: i) They should an international company engaged in the energy or industrial manufacturing

sectors (either as energy users, energy producers/suppliers, equipment manufacturers or service companies) with a corporate goal to reduce GHG emissions,

or ii) They are an international research organisation that play an active role in advising the energy

and manufacturing industries and governments on ways to reduce GHG emissions,

1 For the purposes of the Guidelines new members are defined as Contracting Parties or Sponsors that have not expressed their interest in joining IEA GHG by letter before 1st December 2008. 2 The Emission levels are based on the Kyoto to base year 1990. 3 IEA NEET or Network of Expertise on Energy Technology was launched in May 2006 as part of the G8 Gleneagles Action Plan

49

GHG/09/12

or iii) They represent a consortium of companies/organisations involved in the research and

development of GHG mitigation technology for the energy/industrial manufacturing sectors or the promotion of GHG mitigation in these sectors and with Government.

Contracting Parties and Sponsors falling outside these guidelines would not be excluded from membership but the individual merits of each applicant would be considered as well as their potential contribution to the objectives of the Programme. Membership Review Criteria Where a membership enquiry comes to the General Manager he would follow the procedure outlined below: For Contracting parties that conform to the guidelines: 1. Notify the Chairmen, Vice Chair and Operating Agent. 2. Provide the interested party with details of the membership requirements. 3. If the interested party responds positively to 2 and there are is no adverse response from 1

invite the interested party to send in a letter an Expression of Interest (EOI) in joining IEA GHG.

4. Send the EOI to members for their reference and invite comments prior to an ExCo. 5. If there are no adverse comments from 4), invite the interested party to the next ExCo meeting

to present their case for joining IEA GHG and ask Contracting Party members to vote. Once the vote is taken and the application is agreed the General Manager will follow the standard formalities for membership as required by IEA for IA’s.

For Sponsors that conform to the guidelines: 1. Notify the Chairmen, Vice Chair, the Operating Agent and the respective country member if

appropriate. 2. Provide the interested party with details of the membership requirements. 3. If the interested party responds positively to 2) and there are is no adverse response from 1)

invite the interested party to send in a letter an Expression of Interest (EOI) in joining IEA GHG.

4. Send the EOI to members for their reference and invite comments prior to an ExCo. 5. If there are no adverse comments from 4), invite the interested party to the next ExCo meeting

to present their case for joining IEA GHG and ask Contracting Party members to vote. 6. Once the vote is taken and the application is agreed the General Manager will follow the

standard formalities for membership as required by IEA for IA’s .

Action Members are invited to approve the guidelines for new members

50

GHG/09/13


IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Draft Phase 6 Strategy

Introduction

At the 33rd ExCo meeting (Berlin, Germany) members agreed to realign the operating phases of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG) with the phases of the IEA Implementing Agreement (IA). The IEA GHG IA comes up for renewal in 2011 and at the 34th ExCo meeting (Washington D.C.) members agreed to extend the existing Phase 5 by two years until November 2011 to be consistent with IA renewal time frame. To extend the current IA phase beyond 2011, IEA GHG will need to provide IEA with a strategy agreed by the membership for its activities during next phase. To this end, at the 33rd ExCo meeting members agreed to the setting up of an Ad hoc committee of members to help develop a draft strategy for approval by the membership as a whole. This report summarises the results of the Ad hoc committee meeting held in Palo Alto, California, USA in February 2009 and outlines the draft strategy that will be presented for member’s consideration at the 35th ExCo meeting (Brisbane, Australia). Draft Strategy a) Role and objective and main activities The role of the Programme is: To evaluate options and assess the progress of technologies that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions derived from the use of fossil fuels. The objective of the programme is: To provide our members with definitive information on the role that technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The main activities of the Programme are:

1. To evaluate technology options for greenhouse gas mitigation from fossil fuels, 2. To help facilitate implementation of potential mitigation options, 3. To help facilitate international collaborative activities, 4. To disseminate the results of our work as widely as possible.

The main focus of the work in the next phase will be on CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) but will not be exclusive to CCS and other mitigation options will also be considered as appropriate. The focus of the work will be reviewed at the mid-term of the phase. b) Time frame The draft strategy has been based on two time frames which are:

1. The near term i.e. up to 2020 covering the term of the new phase (2011-2016). This time frame covers the expected implementation of up to 20 CCS demonstration plants

51

GHG/09/13

2. The longer term 2020 to 2050. This time frame covers the introduction of 2nd/3rd

generation CCS technology and period of the expected transition to a low carbon economy.

Timescale 2010 2020 2030 - 2050 Supporting CCS demonstrations Introducing 2nd/3rd generation technology

Transition to the low carbon economy

c) Key areas of focus The key focus areas for the near term work (up to 2020) will be to:

Assess the current state of knowledge on CCS and the identification of gaps and R&D needs

Assess the most important issues for CCS implementation and addressing indentified barriers

Assess which technology options have the highest probability of success Provision of state of the art critiques for members

The focus areas for the longer term work will be to:

Assess the potential of those 2nd/3rd generation technology options as they move from laboratory to pilot scale and assess their potential to reduce the cost and energy penalty for CCS,

Assess the long term breakthrough technologies and how their technical development from concept to laboratory to pilot scale might be assisted. based on experience gained from other technologies

Assess the transition phase to the low carbon economy and the technology needs during that transition.

d) Key technical aspects for Phase 6 The specific tasks considered for each main activity in the next operating phase are as follows: Task 1. - To evaluate technology options for greenhouse gas mitigation from fossil fuels. The key technical aspects of CCS technologies that need to be undertaken in the near term are:

Assessment of the status of 1st generation capture technologies Assessment of transport system options Assessment of geological storage options Assessment of infrastructure issues Assessment of flexibility/component integration issues Integration of the whole CCS chain

52

GHG/09/13

Other related key aspects include: HSE issues Environmental impacts – e.g. associated with solvents, storage Risk assessment/management issues Liability issues Regulatory development needs – i.e. MMV requirements etc., Technology and deployment issues that should receive priority by countries planning large-

scale CCS demonstration projects Public awareness needs – assessing communication needs

Other near terms aspects that will be included:

Assessment of biomass CCS potential, costs and efficiencies Assessment of research needs for the large scale implantation of CCS Development of methodologies to allow comparison of alternative mitigation options – e.g.

LCA Consideration of sustainability issues for CCS energy based systems Consideration of energy system adaptation requirements.

The key technical aspects of CCS technologies that need to be undertaken in the near to long term include:

Evaluation of 2nd/3rd generation capture technology, to reduce energy penalty, environmental impact, integration needs etc.,

Assessment of potential future breakthrough technologies, Comparison and evaluation of the state of art of alternative storage options – e.g. Basalts.

mineralisation etc., Comparison and evaluation of the state of art of alternative mitigation options – e.g. air

separation, bio char etc., On all aspects IEA GHG will look to develop critiques on state of the art and what has been learnt to date for member’s guidance. Task 2 - To help facilitate implementation of potential mitigation options, The key activity in this area is the summer school series which will be continued through Phase 6. However, consideration should be given to how we can better engage students in the long term and track their experience. IEA GHG will continue to co-operate with bodies such as the IEA and CSLF that provide policy related messages on CCS to the G8 and Energy Ministers. IEA GHG will continue to support through the provision of “evidence based information” international, regional and national bodies developing regulations and standards such as; UNFCCC/SBSTA, IMO, EU ZEP. IEA GHG will continue to assess potential barriers to implementation (identified in Tasks 1 and 3) and develop studies to address these barriers as required. IEA GHG will continue to help facilitate the development of best practise guidelines for CCS such as site characterisation guidelines etc. and guidance for regulatory development such as MMV needs for quantifying leakage etc.,

53

GHG/09/13

Task 3 - To help facilitate international collaborative activities, The key activity in this task is the international research networks; these will be maintained and built upon as appropriate during Phase 6. A general network strategy should be developed as well as strategies for individual networks .The networks should aim to provide members on a regular basis with information on “what has been learnt” that feeds into Task 2. Network needs should be evaluated and new networks activated as required on issues such as; pre combustion capture, public acceptance etc., The proliferation of practical R&D Projects means that it will be difficult to associate with projects in the future due to resource limitations. IEA GHG will instead look to associate with national/regional programmes and provide members with an overview of activities at this level. IEA GHG will endeavour to ensure that the work from these national programmes gets fed into the research networks in Phase 6. Such programmes include: the Regional Partnerships Programme in the USA, CATO in the Netherlands etc. A small number of ad hoc practical R&D project interactions could be considered provided they demonstrate a clear benefit to the Programme. IEA GHG will continue to help facilitate member involvement into international research projects such as the DNV JIP on site characterisation and the Imperial College LCA study. Two specific groups where IEA GHG will look to co-operate are with the new Global Institute on CCS and the European Demonstration Project Programme (actual title?)

Task 4 - To disseminate the results of our work as widely as possible. Existing dissemination activities will be maintained these include:

Web sites Greenhouse Issues newsletter GHGT/OCC conference series and GHGT/OCC summary report every two years Public summary reports Annual reviews of IEA GHG activities for promotional purposes IJGGC

In addition, IEA GHG will develop a report on members activities on CCS – this will be based on an agreed template updated by members but undertaken by a contractor. IEA GHG will use IJGGC to commission regular invited reviews on the state of art of key components of CCS technology. It was identified that there was a need to update the web sites regularly including the databases and IEA GHG should look how best to outsource the database activity - perhaps to Universities. Action

Members are invited to approve the draft strategy for Phase 6.

54

GHG/09/14



WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT - PROJECTS? The IEA GHG is currently in the process of undertaking an assessment of the learning that is being provided by the current operational large-scale pilot, demonstration and commercial CCS projects around the world. By compiling and assessing this information we hope to increase the awareness about what is going on and what is being learnt that will assist wider CCS development and deployment. We also hope to use the information to identify gaps within the global CCS portfolio to help direct future funding, research and ultimately further projects toward filling these gaps. We have chosen to use the following indicative criteria to define Operational Large-scale CCS projects:

Was operational by the end of 2008, and either:- Capture over 10,000 tCO2 per year from a flue gas Inject over 10,000 tCO2 per year with the purpose of geological storage with monitoring Capture over 100,000 tCO2 per year from any source Coal-bed storage of over 10,000 tCO2 per year Commercial CO2 EOR is excluded unless there is a monitoring programme.

We acknowledge that a lot of relevant learning has been gained from smaller projects and research but we wish to focus only on these larger projects. We initially identified twenty-six projects which meet the criteria and contacted each of the projects individually. Each project has been contacted hand will be engaged to help us compile an initial information set for each project. Building this information set will be an iterative process starting with a questionnaire. The questionnaire is designed to be relatively short and simple to complete but should provide us with the key details about the project. The questionnaire is in five parts, parts 1-4 are the basic information on the project, with part 5 focusing on the key learning aspects of the project. The information provided has allowed us to undertake an initial assessment of the learning being provided in each of the areas. This assessment will be reported to our member countries and will then be issued as a published report and made available on our web site. We see the updating of this information as an ongoing activity every 2-4 years, and with other activities, leading to a global network of learning from large scale CCS projects. Response so far Of the initial twenty-six projects that were thought to meet the criteria, to date, we have received fifteen completed questionnaires. In addition, we have been informed that the Teapot Dome Test Centre does not meet the criteria as the start of injection was delayed into 2009. We have however received notification and completed questionnaires from three additional projects that do meet our criteria. These projects were;

1. IFFCO Commercial CO2 Recovery Plant (Phulpur unit) in India 2. IFFCO Commercial CO2 Recovery Plant (Aonla Unit) in India 3. Chemical Company “A” Commercial CO2 Recovery Plant in Japan

55

GHG/09/14

Therefore with three projects added and one removed, the total list of eligible projects now stands at twenty-eight with a total of eighteen questionnaires returned.

28 Large-scale Operational Projects

Figure 1: 28 Large-scale Operational Projects

Location of Large-scale Operational Projects

Figure 2: Location of Large-scale Operational Projects

56

GHG/09/14

Although we are still waiting on ten projects to return their questionnaires, there is enough information present in the questionnaires that we have received to start to analyse. Accordingly the information and analysis below gives preliminary results and thoughts on what we have learnt from demonstration projects that can be enhanced and improved with further analysis and the returns from the rest of the projects identified. The analysis so far is separated into two parts; the first part of the analysis looks at the total portfolio of projects to see how well they cover the spread of project types and technologies needed to fully demonstrate CCS. The second part of the analysis looks at the key learning from the projects we have received questionnaires from to help identify gaps, overlaps and areas of collaboration between projects. It should be noted that for projects that have not returned their questionnaires, if information is known about these projects then it has in some cases been used in the overall analysis. Extent of coverage of the CCS demonstrations As the CCS industry looks to move from the demonstration phase into full scale deployment it would be useful to assess which technologies have been demonstrated and which are yet to be demonstrated. There are a number of lists and matrices that attempt to identify the key technology steps that will be required. One such matrix was produced by the European Union Zero Emissions Technology Platform (EU ZEP). The EU ZEP initiative has analysed the range of CCS technologies which need to be demonstrated in some detail. As a result of their analysis they have recommended that building 10-12 large scale projects is the practical way to cover the full range of CCS technologies which need to be demonstrated. The EU proposal is actually based on 7 archetypal projects which would just be sufficient to give the required coverage as shown below. The reason for 10-12 projects is to ensure all criteria can be realised in practice. The projects covered in this study cover a significant part of this territory although not always the scale which is ultimately required. Areas which are covered are encircled with solid lines. The dotted lines indicate coverage but too early for conclusive learning. The red crosses indicate areas definitely not covered by the portfolio of qualifying projects. Offshore open aquifer is dotted because although the Utsira formation is an open formation the Sleipner project is using a local structural trap for storage.

57

GHG/09/14

ZEP Project Matrix

Figure 3: ZEP Project Matrix From the returns that we have received so far, there are only a small number of capture processes from flue gas and these are predominantly flue gases from natural gas combustion. Coal and lignite capture demonstrations are those at the Schwarze Pumpe oxy-combustion demonstration which uses lignite, the Dakota gasification plant which is also processing lignite, and CASTOR which involves capture from hard coal. Returns are also expected from Bellingham Cogeneration facility and Warrior Run power plant which also capture CO2 from coal combustion. Apart from the capture at the Dakota Gas project there are no further pre-combustion demonstrations represented. Nevertheless there have been a number of demonstrations and commercial scale plants employing the key gasification step. This is perhaps an area where there is already significant technology demonstration to which more attention should be given. Trunk CO2 pipeline transport is only covered in the list of projects by the Weyburn project although several projects use the established CO2 trunk line system in the USA for their supply but have not provided any information on it. Ship transport is not represented at all. Several projects are using onshore structural traps in saline aquifers but not yet open reservoirs. Also there is no deep offshore oil and gas field usage represented. Interestingly the EU matrix above has no category for offshore structural deep saline aquifers perhaps because the long experience at Sleipner is already considered adequate. Finally the items retrofit, efficiency improvement and international co-operation in the last column are covered in some aspects of the projects however this column is not core to the comparison done here.

58

GHG/09/14

Extent of coverage of storage A brief analysis of the key attributes of target storage formations has been made to assess the range of permeabilities, porosities, depths, reservoir types annual quantities and purpose. The ranges are summarized below and also in the chart form. The target formations generally range in depth from 1000-2000 meters and have permeabilities and porosities typically in the range 10-100mD and 10-25% respectively. The actual values received so far are shown in the charts. It should be noted that in any one storage formation there will generally be a range of permiabilities and porosities but the values presented here represent the typical values provided to us by the project operator. Only half of the projects have identified the storage formation type and so far there is an even mix between carbonate and sandstone reservoirs. The projects are a mix of EOR and straight CO2 storage as shown in the pie chart. Annual quantities captured and stored vary considerably. Net storage rates vary from a few tens of thousands of tons per year up to around one million tons per year although quite a few returns have still to come in with more precise figures.

Purpose of CO2 Injection

Figure 4: Purpose of CO2 Injection

59

GHG/09/14

Storage Formation Types

Figure 5: Storage Formation Types

Porosity of Storage Formations

Figure 6: Porosity of Storage Formations

60

GHG/09/14

Permeability of Storage Formations

Figure 7: Permeability of Storage Formation

Storage Formation Depth

Figure 8: Storage Formation Depth

61

GHG/09/14

Net Storage of CO2 Per Year

Figure 9: Net Storage of CO2 Per Year Extent of information on monitoring techniques Returns so far indicate a wide range of monitoring techniques in use. The extent of seismic varies with 3D being common and some 4D sets. Quite a few projects have used vertical seismic and crosswell seismic techniques and a few are starting to use electrical conductivity methods. A number of projects have employed tracers but down hole fluid sampling is not so common. Several projects have attempted to measure microseimic and passive seismic events. A fair number of projects use soil gas samples for monitoring at the surface but detector arrays and eddy covariance methods have also been employed. Satellite imaging and tiltmeters to detect ground movement have also been tested. Extent of information on capture Capture from pressurized gas is represented several times at scales upwards of one million tons per year with Great Plains and Rangely having capacities of 2.5 and 4.43 million tons per year. A range of commercial processes is covered. Capture from flue gases is at a lesser scale. Only two main processes are in use, Fluor’s “Econoamine” and Mitsubishi’s KM-CDR for the most part capturing from gas fired facilities on a scale up to 100,000 tons per year. Oxycombustion capture is represented by Schwarze Pumpe but it is too early for information from this project. Basic information on capture from pre-combustion at Dakota gasification has been returned. Detail and coverage of information returned There has been a good response to the questionnaire and there are quite a few responses which require follow up to get a fuller understanding of the learning which has been achieved. Overall the information provided is rather general which tends to raise further questions. Some additions

62

GHG/09/14

to the questions will probably be warranted as well as follow up on a considerable number of individual responses Learning from the projects Most of the learning identified in the responses so far has been focused on injection, storage and monitoring which is reflected in the analysis so far. However there has been some learning identified in capture and in regulation and more is expected. This additional learning will be reflected in the final, complete analysis. It is evident that whilst complete large scale CCS systems as envisaged by the EU demonstration program have still to be demonstrated there is already significant operation of closely integrated parts of CCS systems. The expertise needed to set up and operate a large scale CCS system is in existence around the world but drawing it together for the major projects will be a challenge. The survey returns are based on a vast amount of engineering and scientific work much of which is relatively routine to those who are carrying it out. The extent of this supporting information is not really brought out by the survey but is of course available to assist in learning. The survey returns so far are encouraging in that they do highlight some specific areas where more information sharing is likely to be of benefit to future projects. In particular this can help in defining those areas which need further development and testing Commonalities There would appear to be some developing consensus about different areas of CCS. Areas of commonalities so far are discussed in this section. Seismic is an effective technique for monitoring the CO2 plume in some, but not all storage scenarios. Learning so far indicates that seismic is not quantitative beyond a certain resolution and is rather expensive for what it delivers. Electrical conductivity measurements are seen as promising additions to the monitoring suite although their value beyond experimental projects has yet to be demonstrated. Interest in monitoring microseismic events appears to be waning due to an emerging belief that this technique may have little to offer. Monitoring of layers above the target reservoir is mentioned in a couple of projects as being potentially a more convincing way of showing seal integrity to none specialists. Better and more extensive sampling of downhole fluids under reservoir conditions is considered worthwhile and does not seem to be practiced by many projects. Well injectivity is an important issue in most projects and there are examples of difficulties as well as solutions. Contradictions The returns so far do not indicate any contradictions between findings from different projects. Potential for more collaboration Choosing the best suite of monitoring techniques and the best methods of presenting proof of integrity of storage sites to authorities and public are potential areas of collaboration. There is beginning to be enough information about how all the techniques work to enable the slimming down of requirements for commercial projects. The construction of a monitoring programme will always have to be a site specific process given the variation in site characteristics and the different capabilities of monitoring techniques. Hydrate formation is mentioned in a couple of returns in relation to transport and injection. This is an area that needs to be examined further both through research and at existing projects. Injection performance is a common issue with a couple of examples of impairment. However in general respondents appear to be reasonably confident that they can predict injectivity. One issue

63

GHG/09/14

which has been revealed is the difficulty which underpressured reservoirs cause when perforating because there is not the normal capability to flow the well to clean it up. Injection of CO2 into depressured formations can be expected to increase and collaboration and dissemination on this subject would be valuable. Several mentions are made of successful management of materials selection/corrosion and sharing of this experience will be helpful in reducing costs Key learning themes From the initial analysis that has been performed a number of key learning points have been identified that warrant further examination. These are points that will be kept in consideration during further analysis and could be explored further through additional questionnaires and correspondence with the project operators. These include:

Effectiveness of monitoring techniques – what to drop and what to develop Injectivity – prediction, restoration and enhancement Designing to avoid hydrates Performance of materials in CO2 environments Scaling up capture train size Wells – designing, placing, and monitoring cementation

Additional areas for future consideration It is evident that large scale capture projects and the learning from them have yet to occur. The only capture processes which have significant presence in the market place are the two proprietary flue gas capture process. In addition there are a number of proprietary gasification processes which will form the heart of any pre-combustion capture processes and this technology at present is (apart from Dakota Gasification) outside the scope of the survey. The gasification industry is served by specialized conferences and forums and is also commercially competitive making collaboration difficult. Thought needs to be given to how best if at all to get better coverage of the demonstration of this technology. Other issues As the CCS industry develops there will be an increasing trend towards deployment of proprietary rather than open technologies. This will make collaboration and dissemination more difficult for organizations such as IEAGHG. On the other hand developers and vendors of CCS technology have much to gain by publicizing their products. One way in which this might be done would be to encourage some form of independent benchmarking process. DNV has already made some progress in this direction with their methodology for qualifying capture plants. Next Steps There are a number of next steps to progress further with the analysis of what we have learnt from demonstration projects. Phase 1 of the project is the initial data collection and preliminary analysis. To complete Phase 1 the surveys that are still outstanding must be followed up. This will ensure that the whole picture is considered for further analysis. Once all the surveys have been gathered then a complete analysis of the results can take place. A complete analysis of the entire suite of projects is likely to reveal gaps, overlaps and areas for collaboration between the different projects. We then see this process repeated every two years.

64

GHG/09/14

Once the gaps, overlaps and areas for collaboration from Phase 1 have been identified we propose to have further contact with the project operators to further explore these areas for and identify how to pass the learning from current projects on to future project developers. The IEA GHG has come up with two options for this continuation of the study; Phase 1b and Phase 2. Phase 1b involves a second round of consultation with the project operators using a similar methodology to Phase 1. Using the results of the initial questionnaires and the analysis of the results, a new questionnaire would be drafted to establish greater detail about the projects and to further assess how the projects combine into a portfolio of learning. The questionnaire could be circulated via email or completed though a telephone interview with the project operators. Phase 1b would culminate in a more comprehensive report being produced on the key learning from project. It would be expected that Phase 1b would be repeated on the same two year basis that Phase 1 will be repeated. Phase 2 looks to build on the learning from Phase 1 in a very different way. Phase 2 would involve the set up of a new Operational Large Scale Projects Network which would bring together the project operators to discuss issues relating to project development and operation that have been raised, initially, in Phase 1 of this project. This forum would involve direct interaction and discussion between project operators with the aim of promoting cross-project learning. The results of the network meetings would be reported in a similar way to the current IEA GHG networks. Development of such a network would be done in collaboration other relevant organizations including GCCSI, CSLF PIRT, DNV (Europe), RCSP (US), etc. It is expected that the Phase 2 network would meet annually in parallel to Phase 1 being repeated every two years. The outcomes from both options would serve as an extremely valuable reference to project developers who can use the information gathered to build on work that is being practiced currently. The continuation of this project will provide the operational knowledge base needed to fast track CCS into commercial development and deployment. Action

We would like to ask the IEA GHG Executive Committee to indicate their preference between:

Continuing with Phase 1 only, Continuing with Phase 1 and commencing Phase 1b, Continuing with Phase 1 and commencing Phase 2.

65

GHG/09/15



SAFETY IN CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE

This study has now been completed, it was undertaken for by the UK Governments Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL). The overview has been sent out to members for comment in March 2008 and the study results will be discussed at the 35th ExCo meeting.

67

SAFETY IN CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE

Background

Within the next few years it is expected that an increasing number of commercial scale demonstrations of CO2 capture and storage technology will be built and brought into operation. Many aspects of the design of such facilities including issues relating to engineering design, environmental impacts, and standards and permitting have been the subject of studies undertaken for the IEA GHG. So far no study has been dedicated specifically to the issue of safety in the above ground elements of CCS systems although such safety issues have been addressed to some extent in earlier studies1. This study was designed specifically to examine the safety issues which are likely to arise when preparing safety cases and planning emergency procedures for CO2 capture and storage (CCS) projects.

Study approach

The study was contracted to the UK Governments main Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) which has become involved in a number of issues relating to safety in CCS projects specifically in support of the DF1 project2 and more generally in support of UK government policy development for CCS. The study has considered a generic CCS system consisting of power plant with CO2 capture, transport by trunk line to an on or offshore injection site. The safety of all surface facilities was considered but not the risks associated with underground reservoirs or the below ground sections of wells. The most established forms of the three leading processes (pre- post- and oxy-combustion) for CO2 capture at power stations were all considered. The study started by collecting basic information in the form of flow schemes, material balances and layouts as well as safety information on CO2 and other materials, such as absorption solvents, which might be encountered. Once this was done a group of experts drawn from the oil and gas, power, pipeline and industrial gas industries were assembled complemented by staff from the UK health and safety executive and IEA GHG. HSL lead this group through a series of 4 structured hazard analysis sessions with the aim of identifying all possible causes of hazards and means of their mitigation when CCS systems are introduced. The study differentiated between those hazards which are already present in conventional power generation, pipeline transport and underground injection activities thus singling out new hazards which might arise when CO2 capture is added. The results of the Hazard identification sessions were documented and used to construct cause and consequence diagrams (often referred to as Bow tie diagrams) showing what factors and events could precede key “top events” and those which could mitigate their immediate consequences and later recovery.

Results and Discussion Hazard identification sessions The four sessions examined safety in CCS systems from different perspectives. The first concentrated on defining the facilities which would be examined and on assessing the information which was available on CO2 safety and handling. An important outcome of this session was the realisation that as yet there is not a great deal of detailed information about the design of CCS systems. This will become available only when detailed engineering designs are prepared during the first large scale projects. Even

1 PH4/23, Barriers to Overcome in Implementation of CO2 Capture and Storage (2): Rules and Standards for Transmission and Storage of CO2, 2006/03, Permitting Issues for CO2 Capture and Geological Storage, 2007/01, Environmental Assessment for CO2 Capture and Storage, 2 DF1 was BP’s first proposed “Decarbonised Fuel” project to be located at Peterhead in Scotland

68

then this information may be proprietary. During this meeting information was generated as to what the non-capturing baseline design was and which additions and changes would be introduced by adding CCS. In the second meeting a structured top down HAZID (Hazard identification) was conducted to brainstorm top events, such as major CO2 release, fire, explosion, relevant to CCS. Brainstorming was carried out using keywords which represented possible top events and/or consequences. In the third meeting CCS was examined from a completely different angle. Participants were asked to focus, again using keywords, on what changes to existing practices CCS might bring particularly in terms of layout, interfaces and organisation. In the last meeting draft bow-tie diagrams which had previously been constructed based on the information from meetings 1-3 were considered The structure of the bow-ties was analysed and possible barriers to the realisation of the top events and mitigation of their consequences were brainstormed Bow tie diagrams The information generated during the sessions was encapsulated in a set of bow tie diagrams which effectively describe all of the factors which could contribute to causing incidents in CCS systems and the subsequent handling of the consequences. The diagrams have been transferred to an interactive Excel spread sheet which makes them easier to navigate. It is anticipated that they can be used in the first phases of safety management in future CCS projects. Identification of new hazards and knowledge gaps To raise awareness of the potential hazards emerging from the HAZID sessions a list of 23 avoidable accidents was formulated which illustrate all of the significant generic factors which were identified. These were formulated on the basis of the following list of potential hazards which could be used as part of a safety check list at various stages of a CCS project. It must however be emphasized that this is no substitute for timely application of a full safety management program during the design, construction, operation and maintenance of CCS facilities. The teams identified potential for:-

1. New low points to be subject to CO2 asphyxiation hazard 2. Parts of pigs exposed to HP CO2 to explode when depressurised 3. Increased risk of running pipeline fractures 4. New enclosed spaces to be subject to CO2 asphyxiation hazard 5. HP CO2 leaks to be a potential source of static discharge 6. Undetected formation of low level clouds of CO2 even when there are no low points 7. Persons to move to less safe places following a CO2 release due to inappropriate emergency

training 8. Cold burns from CO2 releases 9. Toxic hazards due to mercury accumulation 10. Changes in abundance and toxicity of scales and sludges co-produced with oil from reservoirs

where CO2 storage is combined with EOR 11. Fires in oxygen enriched atmospheres 12. Pyrophoric material formation in lines and equipment exposed to H2S contaminated CO2

streams 13. Inappropriate training and qualifications for staff designing, operating and maintaining CCS

systems 14. Oxygen burning of steel in oxygen systems due to inadequate standards of equipment

cleanliness 15. Enhanced risk of brittle failure during depressurisation of CO2 containing equipment 16. Increased explosion overpressures due to congestion 17. New places to be subject to nitrogen asphyxiation 18. Fires involving new solvents used for CCS because they are more flammable than they appear

69

19. Formation of water from O2 and H2 and subsequent corrosion when certain CO2 streams are

mixed 20. New solvents used for CCS to contain toxic components 21. Ergonomic problems caused by revamping sites with old control systems 22. Inadequate dispersal of CO2 from large vents 23. Incomplete coverage when advanced CO2 pipeline leak detection systems are deployed

Those responsible should ask, for each of these in turn, whether this potential has been introduced and if so whether it has been adequately addressed, understood and controlled. Through working in the diverse group it became apparent that industry in its totality has sufficient experience, some of it very extensive, to conduct CCS operations safely. However unless this information can consistently be made freely available and accessible where it is needed, the safety of CCS systems may be jeopardized. A few areas where further research and development are needed were noted namely:-

1. Consequence modeling of CO2 releases, particularly the development of the source term. 2. Pipeline failure criteria in terms of validation of models predicting conditions under which

running failure could occur. 3. Understanding the propensity of dense phase CO2 to dissolve heavy metals and other toxic or

radioactive contaminants from rock formations. Experience from EOR is limited to a relatively small number of reservoirs.

4. Design and operational standards for CO2 pipelines and other equipment are still in development. Issues include suitable CO2 specification (particularly water content); avoidance of hydrate formation; suitable non-metallic materials for seals etc.; suitable design and operating regime for intelligent pigs; flow modeling of CO2 with impurities which impacts on leak detection systems.

5. Aspects of emergency response planning such as recommendations for those in cars.

70

General recommendations for industry The report made a number of general recommendations which would need to be taken up by industry. These in summary are

The hazard lists and bow-tie diagrams produced by this project should be used as an input to hazard identification and design studies for CCS projects

Work should continue to be carried out to develop design standards for CCS and to resolve

knowledge gaps which have been identified.

Particular attention should be paid to layout and interface issues when CCS is retrofitted into existing power stations. Control system compatibility and ergonomic studies should be considered.

Training and competency issues should be considered at the outset of a project, including

setting competency and training requirements for key staff and providing a hazardous substances training module for all staff destined to work on a new CCS plant.

An international CCS system incident database should be set up with free access to all.

An emergency response plan should be developed, particularly for incidents involving major

loss of containment of CO2.

Expert Reviewers Comments

Expert reviewers had few comments. It was pointed out by several that that the good US experience with 4000 miles of supercritical CO2 trunk lines was being under played and that perhaps too much concern was expressed about safety of large CO2 pipeline systems. The main report was modified to better acknowledge this. However it was felt that concerns relating to the different and more densely populated environment, very large scale and lack of established local experience remain valid. One reviewer pointed out a new hazard which could be caused by a minor leak in a buried CO2 pipe namely that this would acidify the ground water and potentially accelerate external corrosion. A further comment was that more detailed information on the effects of CO2 and absorption solvents and their degradation products on humans would be valuable in this report. Some additional information and references were added.

71

Conclusions

Industry has wide experience in the handling of CO2 which can be used to ensure the safety of above ground CCS operations. The extensive hazard analysis performed during this study did not find any fundamental safety issues which could not be fully managed although some new considerations were identified. Nevertheless there are numerous hazards associated with CCS surface operations which will have to be addressed if the industry is to develop without incident. The CCS industry is in its infancy and as such is starting with a clean record. However, it is acknowledge that there have been a number of fatalities due to the use of CO2 in other industry sectors over the years. Sharing of information and expertise is expected to contribute significantly to safety in the industry in its early years. Additional efforts and mechanisms to ensure that this exchange occurs would be beneficial.

Recommendations Some of the general recommendations to industry made in the report could be actively encouraged or supported by IEA GHG. In particular:

IEAGHG could make the generic bowtie diagrams available as an additional tool through its website

. IEA GHG could also support the setting up of a centralized incident database for the CCS

industry. However, it is considered that the task of running such a database could be quite onerous for IEA GHG. Therefore it is considered the newly formed Global CCS Institute could be a more suitable organization to do this rather than IEA GHG.

72

GHG/09/16



REMOVAL OF IMPURITIES FROM CO2

This study has been delayed for technical reasons but now been reported at the draft stage. It has been undertaken for by ADVANTICA, UK. The overview for the study was not completed so enable it to be included in these papers. The overview will be circulated to members before the ExCo and the results reported to members at the 35th ExCo.

NOTES

73

GHG/09/17



EVALUATION OF NOVEL POST-COMBUSTION CO2 CAPTURE SOLVENT CONCEPTS

This study has now been reported at the draft stage. It has been undertaken for by SINTEF Material and Chemistry, Norway and is based on publically accessible information. The report has been delayed because of the limited amount of publicly available information that can be obtained on the near commercial technologies reviewed as part of this study. The study will be reported as a technical review to members once the comments from the process manufacturers have been received The results of the review section of the report are attached for member’s reference and will be reported to members at the 35th ExCo.

75

Evaluation of Novel Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Solvent Concepts

Background

The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG) has been monitoring the progress of the development of post-combustion CO2 capture technologies especially looking at the various different solvent alternatives to the standard monoethanolamine (MEA) process. It was proposed in the study voting round of the 30th ExCo meeting (Vaasa, Finland), that a technical review of some of the more novel capture processes should be undertaken. The review which is reported here looked at solvents other than MEA that could be used for post-combustion CO2 capture in the near term. The purpose of this review was to outline the current state of knowledge and provide an assessment of the following aspects:

Process chemistry and kinetics,

Operational issues and major development issues,

Qualitative evaluation of the performance of absorber and stripper column,

Safety and Environmental Impact considerations.

Technology maturity and reported time scale for commercialisation. For this study, SINTEF Material and Chemistry, Norway was employed to do the technical review on three different solvents namely: Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process, the CANSOLV Amine Process and Praxair’s MEA-MDEA solvent. Assessments were made to identify the potential benefits, challenges, and uncertainties regarding the three processes described. Also included in this report is a brief review of the current state of knowledge of Flour’s Econamine FG+ process which was used as a baseline case for performance comparison. All assessments made in this report were based on information made available in the open literature, supported by kinetic evaluations made at SINTEF’s laboratory.

Summary of Discussion Summary of the Assessment of the Chilled Ammonia Process Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process is a carbonate / bicarbonate process which could be considered analogous to the Benfield Hot Carbonate Process developed during the 1950’s. In comparison to the Benfield Process, there are many similarities but also with significant differences. The idea behind Alstom’s process is to use a high concentration of aqueous ammonium carbonate solution and form an ammonium bicarbonate solution for the absorption of CO2

from the flue gas. It has been reported that the solvent loading could be increased in this process compared to a standard MEA process therefore reducing the solvent recirculation rate. For this process, the absorber should operate between 0 -10oC. This process would therefore require the flue gas to be pre-cooled in two stages by 2 direct water contact coolers (DCC’s).

76

The regeneration of the solvent primarily consists of the main stripper with a reboiler and a condenser. It is expected that the regeneration unit would be similar in principle to an amine desorption tower. The key assumption should be that there will no carbonate solids present in the stripper and reboiler section. This is achieved by dissolution of the solids in a regenerative heat exchanger. The process flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Simplified schematic diagram of Chilled Ammonia Process

The report presented the detailed description of each process unit and identified various potential advantages, disadvantages and challenges which remain to be addressed. Some of the potential advantages identified for the Chilled Ammonia Process are as follows:

Low regeneration energy requirement: the heat of absorption of CO2 with ammonium carbonate to form bicarbonate is about 30% lower than that of MEA. Regeneration occurs at high pressure, which could potentially reduce compression costs and reduces the size of the regenerator considerably. As noted the energy requirement will be about one fourth of that for the compression stage compared to the typical compression requirement of the CO2 captured from standard MEA or Flour Econamine process.

Operation with slurry potentially enhances the CO2 carrying capacity of the solvent which is far greater than that of MEA.

Pre-cooling of the inlet flue gas reduces the volumetric flow rate to the absorber, which could potentially reduce the absorber diameter and pressure drop significantly.

Process waste heat and heat rejection can possibly be re-used in other part of theCO2 capture process. Heat removed in the pre-heating stage can be reused as well as cool sources such as the overhead cleaned flue gas.

Ammonia is cheap and does not degrade like MEA.

The extensive cooling of the flue gas will be an effective particle wash, effectively removing trace SOx and other particulate matters that remains in the flue gas

77

Some of the potential disadvantages identified for this process are as follows:

Operational disadvantages:

A slurry type of solvent significantly complicates the process which will require an absorption tower that could handle solids. Concern has also been raised with regard to the particle distribution in the absorption tower and its impact to the reliability of the process.

The absorber will probably have to be of a spray tower type, which will reduce the performance of a liquid film controlled reaction.

More unit operations and piping and narrower operational interval implies increased requirement on process control.

A high pressure slurry pump is needed.

Lean solution pressure:

The lean solution pressure exiting the desorber is about 30 bars. Flashing of steam and CO2 might occur when reducing pressure to ambient prior to the absorber.

The solid formation:

High energy of dissolution,

The exothermic precipitation reaction will require additional cooling/refrigeration in the absorber to keep the temperature low as well as mechanical agitation,

A complicated regenerative heat exchanger is needed for providing the additional energy required for the rich solvent consisting of solids to dissolved and become a liquid solution. Therefore there is a need to control solvent dissolution and flashing. Mechanical stirring will probably be necessary to provide uniform heat transfer to the solution in the heat exchanger.

Reaction rate and absorber chilling:

Operation of absorber at a low temperature is required to provide sufficient driving force for the absorption and to minimise overhead slip of ammonia.

- At this low temperature the carbonate/bicarbonate reaction kinetics are very slow (this is confirmed by experiments performed at SINTEF). It should be noted that absorption of CO2 by the ammonium carbonate system might not be possible without a significant presence of free ammonia working as an activator. This makes the process more energy intensive and puts higher demands on slip reduction control of ammonia.

The separate coolers and refrigeration system required for cooling of the flue gas inlet stream, inter-cooling of the absorber and cooling of the lean stream implies considerably larger CAPEX and OPEX compared to the corresponding cooling system of an MEA based processes.

- Pre-coolers will have similar diameters as the absorber.

CO2 removal efficiency

It is unclear if the process can absorb 90% of the CO2 in the flue gas without free ammonia being present at the absorber.

Some of the remaining challenges needed to be addressed are as follows:

Ammonia slip:

Is it practically feasible to retain the ammonia in the system?

78

Absorption rate:

Is the carbonate/bicarbonate rate of reaction sufficiently fast at the low operational temperature or is significant free ammonia a necessity?

Slurry:

Are the particle sizes of the solid bicarbonate manageable so it can be effectively handled in the hydro cyclone and cross-flow heat exchanger and other unit operations?

Summary of the Assessment of the Cansolv Amine Process The main feature of the Cansolv Amine Process is the use of specific proprietary solvent (DC101TM) which was described as a solvent with (a.) low oxidative degradation potential, (b.) low volatility of the solvent and (c.) low energy consumption for regeneration. Although the composition of the solvent (DC101TM) is not specifically mentioned in the patent, some indications have been given that this solvent comprises a blend of various types of amine (mostly secondary amine) and constitutes at least one type of tertiary amine and an oxidative inhibitor. Primarily the secondary amine acts as the activator to the tertiary amine to increase its mass transfer rate for capturing the CO2. Figure 2 below presents the simplified schematic diagram of the CANSOLV CO2 capture process.

Figure 2: Simplified schematic diagram of CANSOLV CO2 Capture Process The key features of the CANSOLV solvent have been identified in the report and include:

By using a tertiary amine, the pH range 6.5 – 8.5 has been claimed to be the optimal with respect to lowest energy consumption and highest absorption capacity for CO2 capture.

The tertiary amine has a vapour pressure less than 1 mmHg (approx. 1.3 mbar) at 120°C and a water-wash treatment is not required for this solvent. Due to the presence of a secondary

79

amine a water-wash section is however, needed, but this section is smaller in volume compared to the standard MEA process.

The solvent comprises an aqueous solution consisting of 10-50 wt% of the tertiary amine, 0-8 wt % of piperazine, 1-30 wt% of N-(2-hydroxyethyl) piperazine, and with the remainder comprising water.

The second key feature of this process is the ppossibility of integrating the CO2 capture process with the NOx and SOx removal process. Figure 3 present the simplified schematic diagram of the process.

Figure 3: Simplified schematic diagram of CANSOLV CO2 Capture Process with integrated

SO2 removal process The report presented the detailed description of each of the process units and identified various potential advantages, disadvantages and challenges which remain to be addressed. Some of the potential advantages identified for the CANSOLV process are:

Low regeneration energy requirement: CANSOLV has claimed that energy consumption is 40% lower than the Flour Economine process. But it should be noted that clarification is still necessary for this claim. Firstly, it has not been specified in the literature which Flour Economine configuration is used as reference case for CANSOLV’s claim. Secondly, it is not clear to the authors if this lower energy requirement is applicable to the CO2 capture process alone or also to include the integrated SO2 removal process as well.

The integrated SO2 and CO2 removal could provide potential capital cost savings since both gases could be removed in a single absorption column.

One of the key concerns raised by the authors of this review is the potential implication of the effluent which consists of piperazine derivatives, which are known for their low biological degradability rating. Some of the key challenges identified for the CANSOLV process are:

The operation of the integrated CO2 and SOx removal process could be more complex than the MEA process. Primarily, it has been noted that one solvent will be used to

80

capture both gases; however, the solvent is required to be operated at two different pKas. This could also be further complicated by the effect of varying load which is normal to a coal fired power plant.

The authors also raised the issue of the synergetic advantage of capturing both CO2 and SO2 species. The key issue is whether the accumulation of SOx in the solvent circulating through the absorption column could adversely affect the capture of CO2. This is an outstanding question that needs to be answered.

Summary of the Assessment of the Praxair MEA-MDEA Process

Praxair has recently developed a common amine absorption configuration using a proprietary solvent consisting of a blend of MEA and MDEA with the following key features:

The specific handling of oxygen content in the CO2 captured gas prior to its regeneration in the stripper column.

Thee possibility of the addition of an organic component to the aqueous solvent to reduce energy consumption.

Figure 4 presents the basic schematic diagram showing the absorption and desorption process and indicating the application of specific Praxair technology (i.e. solvent and vacuum pump).

Figure 4: Simplified schematic diagram of Praxair Amine Blend Process

The first key feature of this process is the handling of the problems with oxidative degeneration of amine. This is achieved by removing the dissolved oxygen from the rich solution, before it is heated prior to regeneration, through a process modification. It is claimed that there will be no need for inclusion of inhibiting agents. The dissolved oxygen would otherwise cause amine degradation leading to corrosion of steel piping and equipment and other operational problems. To overcome this issue, the modified process incorporates a vacuum flash tank downstream from the absorber, operating at a pressure of 0.2-0.4 bara. The depressurization stage is claimed to remove the oxygen from the rich solution to less than 2 ppm. Some CO2 may be released here also. Alternatively, it is noted in the patent that the rich solvent can be moderately heat exchanged to a temperature within 60-71oC prior to the vacuum flash deoxygenation. The oxygen can also be removed by contacting the solution with an oxygen scavenging gas such as nitrogen or a portion of the stripped CO2 in a packed column or a similar mass transfer device. The resulting oxygen free rich solvent then passes through a

81

(second) heat exchanger and is heated to a temperature of about 105oC before entering the stripper as in a traditional process configuration. The second key feature of this process is the use of a proprietary concentrated alkanolamine blend, up to 50wt% using a larger concentration of one or more slow reacting amines (from 5 to 50 wt%) and a smaller concentration of one or more fast reacting amines (from 5 to 35 wt %). As an example, in a preferred blend one fast reacting amine is chosen, 20wt% MEA, with a second higher capacity and slower reacting amine such as 20-40 wt% MDEA also included. Other fast reacting amines suggested include DEA, Piperazine and diisopropanolamine and other slow reacting amines include TEA and sterically hindered amines such as 2-amino 2-methyl 1-propanol (AMP) could also be used. The third key feature to this process is the addition of an organic component to improve its energy efficiency. This component is suggested, among others, to be a C1-C3 alcohol, ethylene glycol or similar chemical. This addition is thought to reduce the sensible and latent heats that are required for regenerating the amine. The report presented the detailed description of each process units and identified various potential advantages, disadvantages and challenges which remain to be addressed. Some of the potential advantages identified for Praxair process are:

The addition of the organic component provide significant reduction in energy consumption It was noted in this review that by adding the organic component this could potentially reduce steam consumption down to 2.98 GJ/ton of CO2 (as compared to 4.2 GJ/ton of CO2 from a standard MEA plant).

The handling of oxygen prior to regeneration of the solvent could reduce, but not totally remove, the use of the inhibitors. The authors noted that oxidative degradation of the solvent could also occur in the absorber and absorber sump (i.e. it should be noted that occurrence of the degradation of solvent is not only limited in the desorption tower)

Some of the potential disadvantages identified for Praxair process are:

The use of an organic solvent could increase the operating temperature of absorber due to increased vapour pressure contributed by the organic components. This could result in higher thermal degradation of the solvent and carbamate polymerisation.

Concern has also been raised with regard to the potential environmental impact caused by the effluent due to the presence of organic components, which are alcohol based.

Next Steps

SINTEF Chemistry and Materials has extensively evaluated and assessed three novel solvents in this report. The assessment has made based on publicly made available information and supplemented by kinetic data gathered in their laboratory.

Prior to distribution of this report to members; the report will be given to the various stakeholders to these technologies (i.e. providers and users) for their comments. SINTEF Chemistry and Materials will further evaluate any new material provided and incorporate any validated new results and information to this report.

82

GHG/09/18



GLOBAL CO2 STORAGE POTENTIAL IN DEPLETED NATURAL GAS FIELDS

This study has now been completed, it was undertaken for by Poyry Energy Consulting, in association with Element Energy and the British Geological Survey (BGS). The overview has sent out to members for comment in March 2008 and the study results will be discussed at the 35th ExCo meeting.

83

OVERVIEW

Background to the Study

The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG) commissioned Poyry Energy Consulting, in association with Element Energy and the British Geological Survey (BGS), to undertake a study of global CO2 storage potential in depleted natural gas fields. Three main CO2 geological storage scenarios may currently be considered as technologically-advanced – deep saline formations, depleted oil fields as part of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) schemes, and depleted natural gas fields. Much attention is currently focussed on deep saline formations due to these providing the largest theoretical global storage resource (10,000Gt according to the 2004 IPPC Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage), and on CO2-EOR schemes due to the potential economic benefits. However, depleted gas fields offer significant advantages for CO2 storage: proven capacity and sealing structures to give confidence in storage security; and the presence of existing infrastructure that may be suitable for re-use in storage operations. Whilst some technical challenges remain – for example, controlling the flow of injected CO2 into de-pressurised formations where aquifer ingress is low or absent – storage in depleted gas fields could be regarded in some locations as an ‘early’ opportunity for large scale commercial storage. The southern North Sea provides an example of such a location, where a number of large fields are rapidly approaching exhaustion of recoverable natural gas reserves. An earlier study by IEA GHG in 2000 had reported a global CO2 storage capacity in depleted gas fields of 797Gt. The main aims of this study were to re-assess global storage capacity and also derive cost abatement curves for transport and storage.

Scope of Study The initial specification required a desk-based study to:

1. Assess the future implications for CO2 storage of future natural gas production trends, especially the potential future exploitation of fields with naturally-high CO2 content;

2. Undertake a source-sink matching exercise, utilising the IEA GHG database on point source emissions and with due consideration to existing transport pipeline infrastructure. The specification specifically stated that ship transportation should not be considered;

3. Determine the potential role of enhanced gas recovery (CO2-EGR) in CO2 storage; 4. Develop an analytical screening process/tool for the selection of gas fields suitable for

CO2 storage, allowing ranking of opportunities and assessment of potential global CO2 storage capacity;

5. Estimate CO2 storage costs in depleted gas fields; 6. Provide a summary of opportunities around the world where CO2 storage in depleted

gas fields could be feasible from both technological and economic perspectives. During the course of the study, regular progress meetings were held between Poyry, Element Energy, BGS and IEA GHG. Discussions during the early stages of the project led to the following revisions to the scope of the study:

Estimates of storage capacity derived from the study would be placed in the context of a resource classification scheme. The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF)

84

resource ‘pyramid’ (Figure 1) was chosen as the example to be used, although this was not to be reported as an endorsement above other similar classification schemes;

The study would undertake only a brief review of issues concerning natural gas fields with high CO2 content and CO2-EGR (items 1 and 3 on the original scope), since the report authors considered these issues to have limited significance for the overall CO2 global storage potential of gas fields; therefore project resources would be better deployed on storage capacity estimation and cost analysis;

Re-use of existing pipelines would not be considered for the source-sink matching and costing elements of the study, since the suitability of such infrastructure would vary according to local factors;

Similarly, site-specific geological factors such as caprock and well integrity issues would not be described or directly assessed in the study;

Due to the importance of localised factors as described above in assessing the suitability for CO2 storage of any given gas field, the study would not seek to produce a screening tool for the ranking of gas field prospects (item 4 in the original scope). However a tool to enable regional source-sink matching with respect to time, based on the use of a geographic information system (GIS) would be developed.

Figure 1: CSLF Resource Pyramid

85

Calculation of Storage Capacities Data sources and limiting assumptions The following data sources were utilised by the study:

1. The IEA GHG point source emission database; 2. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Oil and Gas Assessments (NOGA)

and World Petroleum Assessment (WPA), dating from 1995; 3. The 2008 American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Giant Fields Atlas.

As the study estimated global and regional storage capacity, it was necessary to use high level data and apply generic factors that may not be applicable in all situations. All efforts were made to use the most appropriate assumptions, but there were restrictions in available data and resources. Consequently, while this study advances our understanding of the global capacity for storing CO2 in depleted gas fields, it could be enhanced with a more detailed analysis, for example at regional or national levels.

The nature of the various generic factors and simplifying assumptions employed are described in the sections below, for each level of the resource pyramid. It is important to note that the results of the study may not exactly match the definitions provided by the CSLF; nevertheless, reference to the pyramid definitions was still agreed as a worthwhile exercise to place the results in context. Conversion of natural gas recoverable reserves to CO2 storage capacities All capacity calculations in the study were made by conversion of recoverable natural gas reserves (cumulative production plus remaining reserves) to an equivalent tonnage of CO2, assuming a gas expansion factor (GEF) of 200 and an in-situ density for stored CO2 of 0.7 tonnes/m3. Calculations also assumed that CO2 storage would return depleted gas fields to initial, pre-production pressures. Methodology to determine theoretical, effective and practical storage capacities The USGS datasets, used to determine theoretical, effective and practical capacities, do not include field-specific information such as depth or estimated closure dates. Instead, data is reported globally and for Assessment Units (AU) or Total Petroleum Systems (TPS) which contain a number of individual fields. The USGS gas reserves include associated gas in oil fields, in addition to gas fields. To allow for this in the CO2 storage capacity calculations, a mean value of gas to oil ratios in oilfields reported in the USGS WPA (2,200 cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil) was used to calculate the amount of associated gas and deduct from total gas reserves, to give gas reserves in gas fields. Since the USGS dataset is based on studies in the mid 1990’s, allowance was made in the calculations for both reserve growth and undiscovered reserves. The authors considered the inclusion of undiscovered reserves justified, and cited several examples of large gas fields already discovered since 1995 including Ormen Lange in the Norwegian North Sea and various fields of the northwest coast of Australia.

86

Theoretical capacity is defined as the physical limit that a geological system can accept. For the purposes of this study, theoretical capacity was obtained by simple conversion of recoverable gas reserves to an equivalent quantity of stored CO2, using the assumed values of GEF (200) and CO2 density (0.7t/m3) stated above. Effective capacity is defined as a subset of theoretical capacity obtained by applying a range of technical – geological/engineering – cut-off limits to the assessment. In this study, effective capacities were calculated assuming 75% of pore space originally occupied by natural gas could be filled with CO2, to take account of technical factors such as water invasion and reservoir compaction. Whilst acknowledging this 75% factor as being ‘crude’, the report states that the assumption appears reasonable compared to factors derived from other studies. Practical capacity is defined as a subset of the effective capacity that is obtained by considering technical, legal and regulatory, infrastructure and general economic barriers to CO2 geological storage. In this study, two filters were applied to obtain practical capacity from effective capacities:

1. Reduction of capacity by removing fields with capacities under 50Mt CO2 for onshore scenarios and 100Mt CO2 for offshore scenarios. These simplifying cut-offs were chosen based on, respectively: a 40 year injection life for a source of 1.25Mt, a reasonable minimum for a point source industrial emission with CCS potential; and a 40 year injection life for a 500MWe standard coal-fired plant, which was considered the minimum sized plant that might seek an offshore sink. Since the USGS dataset does not include field-specific information, this filter was applied by applying the statistical distribution of field sizes in Europe (the only available dataset, courtesy of the EU Geocapacity Project) to the entire world. It is acknowledged that the cut-off capacities and assumed field size distributions are potential sources of error in the calculations, particularly if applied at a regional level.

2. The study made an allowance for the potential for some sites to be unsuitable due to risks associated with potential leakage. A survey of natural gas storage analogues by the BGS has revealed approximately 1.3% of sites have experienced leakage. This industrial analogue provided the authors with the justification for reducing the practical capacity by 1% to allow for unsuitable sites. It should be stressed that the authors were not suggesting that capacity calculations should be reduced to allow for a leakage rate of 1% at all sites.

In summary, practical capacity was calculated by reducing the effective storage capacity by 40% to allow for sub-sized (uneconomic) fields, and then by a further 1% to allow for a small number of sites being unsuitable due to the likelihood of leakage. Theoretical, effective and practical storage capacities Table 1 below presents the calculated global theoretical, effective and practical capacities:

87

Table 1. Estimates of Global CO2 Storage Capacity from USGS Data Capacity Basis Estimated CO2 Storage Capacity (Gt)

F95* Mean F5** Theoretical Equivalent to total

recoverable natural gas reserves

560 870 1,300

Effective 75% of theoretical, to allow for geological factors e.g. water invasion

420 650 940

Practical 60% of effective, with further 1% reduction for unsuitable sites due to potential leakage

250 390 560

Notes to Table 1: All figures quoted to 2 significant figures * 95% probability that capacity will be greater than this value, determined from USGS statistics of natural gas reserve growth and undiscovered reserves ** 95% probability that capacity will be lower than this value Regional estimates of theoretical, effective and practical capacity The USGS AU/TPS data were utilised to estimate regional storage capacity, using the same methodology as outlined above; results from the study are summarised in Table 2 below. Table 2. Regional CO2 Storage Capacity Estimates from USGS Data

Region Estimated Mean CO2 Storage Capacity (Gt) Theoretical Effective Practical

Asia-Pacific 100 75 45 Central/South America

60 45 27

Europe 83 62 37 Former Soviet Union 340 260 150 North America 75 56 33 Middle East & Africa 240 180 110 Total 900 680 390 Notes to Table 2: All figures quoted to 2 significant figures Note that the worldwide total estimates of theoretical and effective storage capacity in Table 2 are slightly higher than the estimates from USGS global data shown in Table 1. The authors acknowledge this discrepancy and cite the global data of Table 1 as a more reliable world estimate, due to that base data incorporating a more realistic gas to oil ratio for oil fields.

88

Methodology to determine matched storage capacities Matched capacity is defined as a subset of the practical capacity that is obtained by detailed matching of large stationary CO2 sources with geological storage sites that are adequate in terms of capacity, injectivity and supply rate. For this study, source-sink matching was undertaken by developing a GIS-based semi-automatic network connection algorithm. Source data was taken from the IEA GHG point source emission database, whilst sinks were identified from the AAPG Giant Fields Atlas. The atlas includes basic details on gas fields with reserves greater than 1.5 trillion cubic feet, which collectively comprise some 65% of the world’s total natural gas reserves. Using the same basic assumptions as for the USGS data (GEF of 200, CO2 density 0.7t/m3), these fields equate to theoretical CO2 storage capacities in excess of 100Mt. Fields at shallower depths than 800m were discounted during the study, and theoretical capacities were converted to effective capacities using the 75% factor as applied to the USGS data. However, no further technical constraints such as caprock integrity, injectivity or compartmentalisation, were applied. The source sink matching was undertaken on a decade-by-decade basis until 2050. Estimated dates for storage availability (i.e. close of natural gas production, assuming CO2-EGR will not be applied) were estimated by considering the total volume of recoverable reserves and the year of field discovery; the inherent uncertainty in this estimation was covered by grouping closure dates in decades. Fields with estimated closure dates beyond 2050 were excluded from the matched capacity calculations. A number of working assumptions were needed for the source-sink matching algorithm, reference should be made to the report for a complete description. The basic algorithm process is illustrated in Figure 2 below. Matched storage capacities The report produced a series of regional summary maps illustrating the connection of sources and sinks derived from the algorithm. Table 3 below summarises matched regional capacity on a decade-by-decade basis. Table 3. Regional Estimates of Matched CO2 Storage Capacity

Region Cumulative CO2Storage Capacity (Gt) By 2020 By 2030 By 2040 By 2050

North America 11 15 17 17 South/Central America 2 5 6 8 Western Europe 4 9 11 11 Eastern Europe* 7 21 38 47 Middle East 6 25 32 33 Africa 1 11 13 13 Asia & Oceania 2 5 19 28 Total 33 89 140 160 Notes to Table 3: All figures quoted to 2 significant figures * Includes former Soviet Union

89

Sources ranked by distance from sink

Sources ranked by size (Mt CO2/yr)

Sink selects preferred source

Sink locates 10 nearest CO2 sources

Overall ranking of sources

Is source chosen by another sink?

Can sources fill sink in 30 years?

Remove sources selected in previous decade

Apply cut off distance for decade

Remove sources “too large” for sink

SINKS COMPETE FOR SOURCE

Remove source

Lose

Win

NOSTOP

YES

NO

SELECT SOURCE

YES

Is sink available in decade?

REPEAT

Figure 2: Source-Sink Matching Algorithm

90

Cost Calculations for Storage

Methodology The source-sink matching exercise used to estimate matched storage capacities also served as the basis to estimate costs of transport and storage. Cost elements addressed by the study were: pipelines; boosting (pumping and compression); surface injection facilities and wells; and storage integrity monitoring. There was sufficient information for over 200 of the source-sink connections identified by the study, to compile estimates of lifetime transportation and storage costs. As with the storage capacity estimations, cost calculations derived from the study relied on a series of generic factors and simplifying assumptions, reflecting the global nature of the project and the time, resources and data available. Key assumptions were that existing natural gas production infrastructure, e.g. pipelines and wells, will not be suitable for CO2 storage operations. This was recognised as being a conservative approach, however the timescale and scope of the study did not permit any obvious alternative. The algorithm also does not account for geopolitical factors. Full details of the methodology and simplifying assumptions are set out in the report. Results of cost analysis The study determined that, on a global basis up to 2050, 30Gt of storage capacity in depleted gas fields can be utilised for less than $5 per tonne and 50Gt can be utilised for less than $10 per tonne (Figure 3). The most cost-effective potential was found to be in Oceania, Asia, Eastern Europe including the former Soviet Union, and North America.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Cost per committed lifetime ton

ne of C

O2 ($/t)

Cumulative Gt of CO2 stored

Figure 3: Global Marginal Abatement Curve

91

Expert Review Comments Comments were received from 9 expert reviewers. Overall feedback was positive; most concerns addressed many of the generic factors and simplifying assumptions used, and these comments partly reflected regional perspectives on the source-sink matching exercise. Some of the more significant comments are summarised below:

Several reviewers felt that the field cut-off sizes of 50/100Mt capacity for onshore/offshore scenarios were too conservative, failing for example to recognise the potential of small fields occurring in clusters;

Similarly, assumed values for CO2 density (0.7t/m3) and minimum field depth (800m) were also queried;

The 75% and 60% capacity conversion factors used to convert theoretical to effective and then effective to practical, respectively, were recognised as reasonable for the scale of the study, but nevertheless somewhat arbitrary;

Use of the European field size distribution to reduce global capacities from effective to practical was stated as probably not representative for other regions;

Some of the economic factors used for the cost calculations were subject to sensitivity analyses – several reviewers felt that similar analyses for parameters used in the capacity calculations would also have been useful;

Similarly, a probabilistic approach to capacity calculations would have been preferable; Capacities reported as ‘matched’ by the study do not allow for some geological and

technical criteria (e.g. injectivity) and so could arguably be classed as ‘practical’; One reviewer from industry commented that some assumed cost items appeared to be

underestimated and also that the regulatory, permitting and cost issues associated with pipeline construction may also be more onerous than acknowledged by the study.

Conclusions

The study has provided a fresh perspective on the global CO2 storage potential of depleted natural gas fields. By placing capacity estimates generated in the context of the CSLF resource pyramid, the study has demonstrated how progressive application of various technical and economic factors serves to reduce estimated storage capacities to more realistic levels. The estimated 160Gt of matched storage capacity in depleted gas fields that could be available globally by 2050 may represent a more meaningful assessment than the previously reported 797Gt (IEA GHG, 2000) and similar estimates quoted elsewhere. The timescale and scope of the project necessitated the use of basic global datasets, plus many simplifying assumptions and generic factors which are open to debate, particularly on a regional scale. The report can be considered as a starting point for further more detailed assessments, which could be performed on a regional basis with adjustments to the methodology and incorporation of refined input data, as appropriate. Similarly, the derived cost estimates must be placed in the context of the assumptions necessitated by the global nature of the study. Nevertheless, the key assumption that existing gas production infrastructure could not be re-used is conservative; therefore the projected transport and storage costs of under $10 per tonne for up to 50Gt of CO2 before 2050, illustrate that depleted gas fields represent an important economic CO2 storage opportunity.

92

GHG/09/19


REVISED PROPOSAL FOR AN IRON AND STEEL STUDY

At the 29th ExCo meeting Members agreed to undertake a study in implementing CCS in the Iron and steel industry to compliment the work just completed on the Cement industry (IEA GHG report no 2008/3. However last year IEA GHG wrote to members and asked to defer the study because it had had considerable difficulties identifying a contractor for the study to which members had agreed. However in recent months IEA GHG has had discussions with SSAB (the Swedish steel company), Jernkontoret (the Swedish Steel Producers Association) and MEFOS (Metallurgical Research Institute). These discussions mean that we now have a basis to move forward on this study. We expect to receive a proposal from this group in the coming weeks which we will present to members at the ExCo meeting.

93

GHG/09/20


PRIORITISATION OF NEW STUDIES

Prioritisation of new studies 12 proposals for new studies were sent to members and sponsors for voting. These consisted of:

2 proposals re-submitted from the previous round of voting, with modifications 10 new proposals, 4 from members, 1 from the Joint Network meeting and 5 from the

Programme Team. In addition, members sent in 5 further ideas for proposals. These were carefully considered with the others above, however they were not selected because of duplication or overlap with other proposals or ongoing studies and activities, which in itself is positive in providing further justification to these other existing activities. This means that a total of 9 proposal ideas were generated by members, which is significantly more than usual, and is extremely positive and much appreciated by the Programme Team. Members were asked to vote for up to five of the proposals and indicate their first choice. Votes were received from 31 of the 39 members and sponsors, representing a 79% return of votes which is significantly higher than recent previous voting rounds. The table shows the total number of votes received, the number of ‘first choices’ and a weighted number of votes, in which the first choice vote is assumed to be equivalent to 2 votes. Some members did not indicate a first choice. Proposalnumber

Title Votes First choices

Weighted votes

Proposals selected for presentation

35-6 Pressurisation and Brine Displacement Issues for Deep Saline Formation Storage

12 10 22

35-4 Technical Economic Evaluations of New Processes for CO2 Capture

18 1 19

35-8 Potential Risks to Potable Groundwater from CO2 Storage

13 4 17

35-11 Barriers to Implementation of CCS - Capacity Constraints

14 2 16

35-12 Potential for Biomass with CCS 13 2 15

35-7 Potential Effects of CO2 Waste Stream Impurities on Geological Storage

12 3 15

Other proposals

35-3

Evaluation and Review of Available Technologies for Deep Removal of Amines, Additives and Other Degradation Products from Flue Gas Emissions of the Power Plant with Post-Combustion Capture Plant

11 1 12

35-9 Feasibility of Monitoring Techniques for Substances Mobilised by CO2 Storage in Geological Formations

11 1 12

35-10 Financial Mechanisms for Long Term Liability

10 1 11

95

GHG/09/20

35-5 Experience Gathering and New Concepts for Rotating Equipment for CO2

8 2 10

35-1 The Utilisation of N2 from the ASU of the Oxy-Fuel Combustion Fired Power Plant with CO2 Capture

8 1 9

35-2 Impacts of CCS on Emissions of Other Substances

8 1 9

Six proposals received significantly more votes than others (15 or more weighted votes), Beyond that the voting is closer with two studies receiving 12 weighted points, one with 11, one with 10 and two with 9. After reviewing the outstanding studies awaiting tendering, and our current study commitments we will be able to take on up to 6 new studies. The outline proposals for the six studies which received the most votes have been included here for members to consider with presentations on each at the meeting. Following the presentations of the outline study specifications, the Committee will be asked to decide:

i) Should the Programme proceed with these studies? ii) Do the outline specifications of the studies properly describe the work

required? iii) Which of the proposals not selected in this round of voting should be re-

submitted in the next round? Regarding the resubmission of proposals we would propose that Financial Mechanisms for Liability (35-10) does not go back into the voting round for next time, because this was the second time it had failed to receive enough votes. Those studies with 9 to 12 weighted points should go back into the next voting round since there was considerable interest from members in voting for these studies and all received first choice votes.

96

GHG/09/21


PRESSURISATION AND BRINE DISPLACEMENT ISSUES FOR DEEP SALINE

FORMATION STORAGE

The proposal submitted to the members for this study as part of the voting round is attached for reference. A presentation on the scope of the proposed study will be given at the ExCo meeting. After the presentation members will be invited to consider whether they wish to proceed with this study. Proposal It is proposed that a study on Pressurisation and Brine Displacement Issues for Deep Saline Formation Storage should be carried out.

RESOURCES REQUIRED Financial Project management Average Average

The committee is requested to i) Approve proceeding with this study. ii) Suggest possible contractors iii) Suggest possible expert reviewers for the completed study

97

GHG/09/21

Reference No. 35-6 Meeting 35th ExCo, April 2009 Title Pressurisation and Brine Displacement Issues for Deep Saline Formation

Storage Subject area CO2 storage Originator IEA GHG Description Deep saline formations are widely considered to offer the largest

potential capacity for the geological storage of CO2 as a greenhouse gas mitigation option. Whilst storage in deep saline formations has already been demonstrated as a viable technological option (e.g. Sleipner, In-Salah), discussions at the GHGT9 conference in Washington highlighted an area of major uncertainty: what would be the potential effects of multiple saline formation storage projects in a given regional setting? Potential problems of over-pressurisation, leading to caprock failures and leakage, or large scale displacement of brine (either through engineered systems or uncontrolled migration), could have a major impact on the viability and implementation of large scale storage. This study would seek to examine these issues in detail, firstly through a review of existing information and published studies on the topics of pressurisation and brine displacement. Secondly, the study would consider a case study example(s) of regional deep saline aquifers, where publicly available geological information would be sufficient to allow preliminary, basin scale modelling of multiple well injection scenarios. Examples of suitable storage formation for assessment would be the Utsira or Sherwood Sandstone Group in the North Sea, or the Frio or Tuscaloosa Formations in the southern USA. This modelling would facilitate analysis of key topics:

The importance of storage formation characteristics, relative and absolute permeability variations, compressibility, fracture pressures, heterogeneity – and in particular the likely presence or absence of ‘compartmentalisation’ in typical regional settings

Interaction of pressure fields from multiple injection scenarios and evolution of pressure fields with time – an important element of risk profiles

Pressure effects on caprock and fault integrity Potential magnitude and consequences of brine displacement Possible engineered solutions e.g. brine extraction

The study will aim to produce a ‘high level’ overview of long term pressurisation and brine displacement issues. The study will also aim to highlight the current state of knowledge and / or gaps and recommend further research priorities on these topics.

Resources required

Financial: Average Management: Average

Links with other on-going or proposed studies

Aquifer Storage Development Issues (CO2CRC, completed late 2008)

Storage Capacity Coefficients (Ongoing, EERC) Injection Strategies for CO2 Storage Sites (Approved, TBA)

98

GHG/09/22


TECHNICAL ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS OF NEW PROCESSES FOR CO2

CAPTURE The proposal submitted to the members for this study as part of the voting round is attached for reference. A presentation on the scope of the proposed study will be given at the ExCo meeting. After the presentation members will be invited to consider whether they wish to proceed with this study. Proposal It is proposed that a study on Techno-economic evaluations of new processes for CO2 capture should be carried out.



99

GHG/09/22

Reference number 35-4 Meeting 35th ExCo, Brisbane, April 2009 Title Technical economic evaluations of new processes for CO2 capture Subject area CO2 capture Originator France – IEA GHG Description At present, the conventional absorption process with MEA is considered

as an efficient and robust solution for CO2 capture. Many studies have been done concerning this process and estimated costs range from 45 to 65 €/t of CO2 avoided depending on the assumptions (price of the fossil fuel, concentration of the flue gas, % of CO2 captured etc). The pros and cons of this process are also well-known; high energetic cost for the regeneration, high sensitivity to degradation by SOX or O2, very fast kinetics etc. In order to solve operational problems and improve global performance of CO2 capture particularly in terms of energy consumption, new processes are studied and will be proposed on the market in the years to come. The proposed study is to make an evaluation of new processes in terms of economics, performances and other pros and cons and also to compare them to the reference MEA process. Processes that could be studied include :

the VSA adsorption process developed by Air Liquide, the amino acid process developed by BASF, the absorption process developed by PowerSpan,

A critical point of this study will be access to technical information, which could be done either with the available literature or directly by asking questions to the provider. It should be recognized that it may be impossible to obtain sufficient information on some processes and in other cases if IEA GHG and its contractor have to sign confidentiality agreements with providers it may be impossible to include details in IEA GHG’s published report. An appropriate sensitivity analysis would be necessary to take into account uncertainties in process performance and costs and the variation of construction and raw materials costs. The study would have to be done by an independent organization such as an engineering company or a research body.

Resources required



SINTEF is currently undertaking a study for IEA GHG to assess the chilled ammonia process. This proposed study will extend IEA GHG’s assessment to other new capture processes.

100

GHG/09/23


POTENTIAL RISKS TO POTABLE GROUNDWATER FROM CO2 STORAGE

The proposal submitted to the members for this study as part of the voting round is attached for reference. A presentation on the scope of the proposed study will be given at the ExCo meeting. After the presentation members will be invited to consider whether they wish to proceed with this study. Proposal It is proposed that a study should be carried out to the Potential Risks to Potable Groundwater from CO2 Storage.



101

GHG/09/23

Reference number 35-8 Meeting 35th ExCo, April 2009 Title Potential Risks to Potable Groundwater from CO2 Storage Subject area CO2 storage Originator IEA GHG Description Groundwater resources for potable supply represent a potential

environmental receptor in the context of risk mitigation for the geological storage of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, especially for onshore storage scenarios. This study would seek to provide a thorough review of existing information and published research on the potential impact of CO2 storage on groundwater resources. The study would concentrate on potential impacts associated with storage in deep saline formations, since these provide the largest theoretical CO2 storage capacity and could affect shallower groundwater resources via either direct leakage of stored CO2 or displacement of brine. The potential chemical and physical effects of CO2 (including impurities) and brine on shallow groundwater should be considered. The review would also assess the possible relevance of information from natural or industrial analogues and long term oil-gas field operations where gas or brine has been injected. Finally, the review should include a description of actual or likely regulatory restrictions on storage operations that relate to groundwater protection. The study would then consider case study example(s) of storage in a deep saline formation, where preliminary modelling or assessment of potential CO2 leakage or brine displacement rates could be used to gauge potential risks to shallower groundwater resources. Mitigation and remediation options should also be assessed. The study will aim to produce a ‘high level’ overview of potential risks to groundwater from storage operations, concentrating on deep saline formation storage across a range of typical regional settings. The study will also aim to highlight current state of knowledge and / or gaps and recommend further research priorities on these topics.

Resources required



Aquifer Storage Development Issues (CO2CRC, completed late 2008)

Storage Capacity Coefficients (Ongoing, EERC) Injection Strategies for CO2 Storage Sites (Approved, TBA) Aquifer Pressurisation and Brine Displacement (Proposed study)

102

GHG/09/24


BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF CCS - CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS The proposal submitted to the members for this study as part of the voting round is attached for reference. A presentation on the scope of the proposed study will be given at the ExCo meeting. After the presentation members will be invited to consider whether they wish to proceed with this study. Proposal It is proposed that a study should be carried out to assess the Barriers to Implementation of CCS - Capacity Constraints Potential Risks to Potable Groundwater from CO2 Storage.



103

GHG/09/24

Reference number 35-11 Meeting 35th, Brisbane, April 2009 Title Barriers to Implementation of CCS - Capacity Constraints Subject area Overall CCS Originator IEA GHG team Description The supply and availability of critical equipment, support services and

technical expertise is proving to be a constraint on large scale deployment of renewables and is expected to be so in future for nuclear power. With other technologies like wind power ramping up production at the same time CCS will be also ramping up production are there issues regarding materials/equipment supply that we need to identify early to ensure that these issues do not represent barriers to the implementation of CCS. The IEA CCC have completed a study that has reviewed the regions where new coal fired power plants are likely to be built in the future and then assessed the supply constraints that exist with the build of new coal fired power plants. This assessment has identified that there are potential areas of supply constraints in key components like castings for gas turbines and basic raw materials like steel and cement for plant construction. The aim of this study is to build upon the IEA CCC report by looking at first the additional equipment and skills requirements for large scale CCS deployment in the power sector. If additional constraints are likely for CCS there may be an impact on the future deployment rates of CCS. The study would also looks at possible supply constraints on the transport side for instance large scale pipelines where there are limited suppliers with long order books for natural gas pipelines. Possible constraints on the storage side include availability of seismic surveying vessels if oil and gas exploration is still at a peak and services suppliers like drillers etc., In addition, the study would look at other power production activities like wind, nuclear that are also looking to increase their capacity of production at the same time. Also related areas like oil and NG production which could also be competing at the same time. The aim would be to see if there are similar capacity constraints in their production schemes and if these would cumulatively cause additional problems for CCS. One possible impact is that shortages of materials could drive up costs or a foreseen shortage of key suppliers for example of high quality casting or switch gears could be a critical restricting factor. The study would aim to highlight potential barriers in capacity and suggest ideas for how these could be overcome.

Resources required



None

104

GHG/09/25


POTENTIAL FOR BIOMASS AND CCS

The proposal submitted to the members for this study as part of the voting round is attached for reference. A presentation on the scope of the proposed study will be given at the ExCo meeting. After the presentation members will be invited to consider whether they wish to proceed with this study. Proposal It is proposed that a study should be carried out to the potential for biomass and CCS.

RESOURCES REQUIRED Financial Project management Average Greater than average


105

GHG/09/25

Ref. No. 35-12 Meeting 35th ExCo, Brisbane, April 2009 Title Potential for Biomass and CCS Subject Overall CCS Originator IEA GHG Description Biomass use for energy production in processes such as combustion and gasification, and its

use to produce bioethanol, results in emissions of CO2. If CCS is applied to these emissions, because the CO2 is recently taken-up by the biomass from the atmosphere, then actual CO2 removal from the atmosphere can take place. This is sometimes known as ‘negative emissions’. Future emissions scenarios options discussed by IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR) may require CO2 removal from the atmosphere, and at present there is only one technology area which may be able to be deployed at any scale – biomass with CCS. This issue is starting to be acknowledged by the IPCC (in the 4th AR) and by others. Consequently, there is a need to understand the deployment potential for both uses of biomass with CCS. There may be limitations due to biomass resource availability. A key issue would be that any biomass would have to be from sustainable production methods and without excessive transport and processing emissions. For CCS to be applied, there would be a minimum size of energy conversion plant for economies-of-scale reasons, and smaller-scale usage of biomass may not be feasible for CCS application. This study would use existing biomass resource studies on quantities and geographical distribution, and associate these with the potential for CCS application. All potential biomass energy fuels would be considered, as well as bio-ethanol production. The output would be a global and regional assessment of the potential for biomass with CCS, and the main types of biomass (and technologies for conversion and CO2 capture) identified. An assessment will be made of the net carbon balance for likely biomass CCS technology options, taking into account biomass supply chains and processing, to provide quantitative indications of the emissions performance potential. Consideration would also be given to the deployment issues for biomass and CCS, in terms of policy and regulatory barriers and incentives, for example, treatment in emissions accounting and emissions trading schemes. Assuming the conclusions on the potential for biomass CCS are sufficiently positive, recommendations would then be made for policies and actions to encourage deployment of biomass and CCS.

Resources required

Financial: Average Management: Greater than average – due to co-ordination with biomass energy initiatives, such as the IEA Bioenergy Agreement.

Links/other studies

A related study is Use of Biomass with CCS (ExCo proposal 32-1 and contract GHG/07/48) which is looking at techno-economic performance of capture from biomass in power plant options. A follow-on study to look at the costs and technologies associated with CO2 capture from pulp and paper plants is in planning.The study proposed here does not duplicate but compliments this existing technically-focussed study in that it would provide an overarching assessment of the potential for biomass and CCS. These studies will feed into this work.

106

GHG/09/26


POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CO2 WASTE STREAM IMPURITIES ON

GEOLOGICAL STORAGE The proposal submitted to the members for this study as part of the voting round is attached for reference. A presentation on the scope of the proposed study will be given at the ExCo meeting. After the presentation members will be invited to consider whether they wish to proceed with this study. Proposal It is proposed that a study on Potential Effects of CO2 Waste Stream Impurities on Geological Storage should be carried out.



107

GHG/09/26

Reference number 35-7 Meeting 35th ExCo, April 2009 Title Potential Effects of CO2 Waste Stream Impurities on Geological Storage Subject area CO2 storage Originator IEA GHG Description Geological storage of CO2 as a means to mitigate global warming would

entail capture of CO2 from a range of point source industrial emissions. Capture technology represents the major cost element of the CCS ‘chain’ and the required purity of CO2 can have a major bearing on actual capture costs. Impurities in the CO2 waste stream have the potential to affect the efficiency and safety of transport and storage systems, for example through increased risks associated with corrosion, or changes in the phase behaviour of the waste stream. This study would seek to provide a review of existing information and published research on the potential impact of CO2 waste stream purity on transport and storage engineering and associated costs. Significant work has been undertaken on the effects of impurities on pipeline transport and materials; this study would aim to provide a ‘high level’ overview of available knowledge. The study would concentrate more on the potential effects on storage capacity and integrity, where less previous research has been undertaken. A range of storage scenarios may be considered including deep saline formations, depleted gas fields and CO2-EOR schemes, although the study should focus primarily on deep saline storage since this scenario has the largest theoretical storage capacity and the most significant potential for complex geochemical reactions. Particular aspects that should be considered include: The potential effects of impurities on phase behaviour and storage

capacity calculations, Effects on the rates of geochemical reactions with both formation and

caprock and associated buoyant forces and trapping mechanisms Potential effects on injectivity, reservoir permeability and caprock

integrity both near well-bore and deeper in the formation Potential for corrosion of key well and facility components and

estimated impact on system reliability if not mitigated The study will aim to provide an overview of the effects of impurities on transport and storage, with key issues and limiting factors highlighted. The study will also aim to identify the current state of knowledge and/or gaps and recommend further research priorities on these topics.

Resources required


Links with other on-going recent or proposed studies

Aquifer Storage Development Issues (CO2CRC, completed late 2008) Storage Capacity Coefficients (EERC, ongoing) Injection Strategies for CO2 Storage Sites (Approved, TBA) Impact of Impurities on CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage (IEA

GHG PH-432, August 2004)

108


MEMBERS IDEAS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

Members are invited to suggest their ideas for future studies that could be considered in future voting rounds.

NOTES

109

GHG/09/27


GHGT-9 FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION OF GHGT FUTURE CONFERENCES

Introduction General issues related to the GHGT-9 conference were dealt with under the progress report (see Paper GHG/09/06). This paper has taken out some of the key feedback from GHGT-9 and discusses the implications from GHGT-9 on the future direction of the GHGT conference series and in particular GHGT-10 and then 11. Future conference operation Scope The current scope of the GHGT series has a strong focus on CCS rather than GHG mitigation per se and with the increased interest in the technology and moves towards implementation it would seem appropriate for this to continue for the foreseeable future i.e. GHGT-10 in Amsterdam in 2010 and for GHGT-11 in 2012. These two conferences should take us into the deployment phase of the demonstration projects. It would then seem appropriate to review the conference again after GHGT-11. Technical content The main technical themes/sub themes for GHGT-9 are summarised below: Main Technical themes

Main Technical Sub themes

CO2 Capture Post combustion Pre combustion

Oxyfuel Other options Membranes etc.,

Pilot plant results Industrial experience

Transport infrastructure

Planned demo. projects

Ammonia systems

Chemical looping

Novel processes

Integrated systems

National programmes

Techno economic assessments

National programs Integrated assessment of CCS deployment

Modelling deployment

Advanced system economics

CCS in refining Retrofits

Geological storage

Storage capacity Long term integrity

Monitoring Modelling

Saline aquifers Risk assessment

Site characterisation Environmental impacts

Best practises Storage engineering

CO2-ECBM Novel options

Lessons learnt Pilot/demo projects

Other storage options

Policy Policy developments

Public awareness

Liability issues Capacity Building

Regulatory developments

Post Kyoto policy

Incentives and financing

Stakeholder perspectives

In addition to these technical sessions we had:

a poster session – this is an essential element of the conference six discussion panel sessions on key topics – these are very popular

111

GHG/09/27

The GHGT conference series is a technical conference and at all times we have avoided large plenary sessions with political overtones which is consistent with the feedback we get that delegates do not like large plenaries, therefore this should continue. For GHGT-9, we can see that there was more diversity in the technical content. We had technical themes focusing on nearer term CCS deployment issues, an interest on what has been learnt and also those looking at longer term research needs/topics. In future the diversity is likely to increase as we approach implementation but we need to retain the technical core and we should endeavour to retain the longer term research interests. For GHGT-10 we should start to consider developing themes that will flow through for later years, which could include:

Experiences from pilot/demonstration projects – this would be multidisciplinary and include learning’s on capture, transport and storage and best practise on activities such as regulatory development and public communication. Note: this theme might be less expansive during GHGT-10 but is likely to grow in the future.

Developments in CO2 capture, this would be a technical theme focusing on research developments on 1st/2nd/3rd generation capture processes.

Developments in geological storage, again a technical theme focusing on R&D learning on all geological storage options.

Integrating CCS into the future energy system –this theme would focus on issues such as operational flexibility/smart grids, economic modelling/energy system modelling, LCA, comparative assessments, comparative analyses of centralised versus decentralised options for GHG mitigation.

Implementing CCS – this would focus on near term and long term integration issues like; HSE, environmental impacts, capacity building, infrastructure development, regulatory development, public acceptance, financing, liability etc as well as post Kyoto policy initiative and challenges of going from 10’s to 1000’s of plants. This area should not be exclusive to the power sector but include other industrial sectors like cement, iron and steel, refining etc.

New and emerging mitigation options- the aim of this theme will be to give an opportunity for other mitigation options like; air separation, bio char etc., to present on their work as well as other storage options like ocean, mineralisation, hydrates and new capture ideas like metal oxide frameworks. The theme will give space for non mainstream ideas on mitigation to be aired. These ideas could provide the technical basis for conferences in the future. In essence, it takes the conference back to its roots.

Such a set of themes would give the conferences series a broader appeal, whilst maintaining a technical core that has an R&D flow pattern for the foreseeable future. These ideas have already been discussed with the GHGT-10 organisers and broadly accepted.

Papers/presentations/proceedings For all GHGT conferences to date we have provided abstracts before the event and technical papers in a proceedings after the event. IEA GHG has set the benchmark for the GHGT conference series to be a “quality” conference. The aim of this benchmark is that it is different from other commercial conferences which only supply presentations. At GHGT-9 we had a small number of requests for CDs of the presentations at the conference, practically for a number of reasons this is difficult to achieve with 250 presenters. Also, we have tried to make the oral and poster session more inclusive by giving the same number of pages to oral papers and posters and not differentiating between them in the proceedings. We think this has successfully helped increase the number of posters presented at the conference. Providing

112

GHG/09/27

presentations on line would then introduce a degree of discrimination against poster papers and add to the administrative effort required. We therefore propose to maintain the “quality” benchmark and continue to produce papers for publication in a set of proceedings. This decision is supported by the GHGT-10 organisers. Summary report The GHGT-9 conference was organised to provide scene setting lectures and a panel session at the end that summarised the results learnt. This process allowed the production of a summary report, written by IEA GHG, which has been circulated to members and posted on the conference web site: www.mit.edu/ghgt9. Feedback to date on this summary report has been very positive and whilst the mechanism of its production could change, IEA GHG believes the summary report should be a key deliverable for future conferences. Discussions with the GHGT-10 organisers have been held on this topic they are keen on producing a summary report for GHGT-10 and we will discuss later how best to achieve this. CCS EXPO Delegates were asked if they would be interested in attending a CCS EXPO alongside the conference in the future and the feedback was very positive. An EXPO of suppliers might attract further income to the event, which could be used offset say subscriptions. Detailed consideration would need to be given how such an EXPO would be built into the current conference arrangement of technical sessions/poster sessions and sponsor booths. It is unlikely that this could be achieved at GHGT-10 but could be considered for GHGT-11.

Action Members are invited to discuss the idea of adding an EXPO to the GHGT conferences and if members are positive IEA GHG will come back with a plan of how an EXPO might be incorporated into future conferences.

Future conference organisation It is acknowledged that the conferences are getting bigger and a number of members have expressed concern regarding the organisational needs for future conferences could be getting excessive and would put them off from wanting to host in the future. The current arrangement is for IEA GHG to agree a MOU with the hosts and essentially the hosts take care of local activities, set up the organising committee (which IEA GHG participates in) and leads the programme committee as well. To make the process less arduous on the hosts for GHGT-9 IEA GHG acted as the PC secretariat which will continue for GHGT-10 and for we have developed a central GHGT web site, which IEA GHG will maintain and will provide a central repository for information on all GHGT conferences, past and in the future. For GHGT-11 onwards IEA GHG proposes the following change of organisation of the conference: 1. International Steering Committee (ISC) - IEA GHG sets up an international steering

committee to oversee the technical/organisational direction of future conferences, manage the “Greenman awards” process etc., This could be comprised of members and/or representatives from past (and future) GHGT conferences. The group would only meet at the conference but would conduct its business by telecoms or e-mail.

2. Local Organising Committee – the hosts would set up a local organising committee to select the venue, deal with detailed/specific issues related to the hosting of the event,

113

GHG/09/27

organise hotels, provide onsite registration etc. Much of this work could be done by hiring a local professional conference organiser.

3. Conference Steering Committee – this would comprise, IEA GHG, representatives of the LCO and the TPC chair who would agree the conference timeline, key actions by groups etc. The committee would also be responsible for setting the overall conference programme to be consistent with the broad aims of the conference series set by the TSC and setting the framework for the TPC to operate under. The group would meet regularly, as conference demands dictate, but mostly by phone/e-mail.

4. Technical Programme Committee – the main role of this committee is to select the technical papers and develop the outline conference programme. IEA GHG would set up the Programme Committee and manage its activities through its existing secretariat function. The Programme Committee (PC) would be comprised of recognised international experts, and we would aim to build in a degree of continuity of PC members between conferences (which might include paying members a retainer). If IEA GHG manages this we believe it reduces the workload on the host, bring more “independence” to the paper selection process (during both the last two conferences there have been suggestions made of potential local bias - which were unfounded but we should make best efforts to avoid this in future) by using IEA GHGs reputation as an independent body and provides technical continuity between events which is missing to a degree now. The TPC members could be paid a retainer for their services. An internationally recognised expert could be appointed as chair of the PC again to provide continuity. The TPC would be refreshed each conference say by 30% to bring in new ideas.

This arrangement could allow a future conference to proceed in the unlikely event that a member did not come forward to host an event.

Action Members are invited to discuss these proposed ideas the organisation of future conferences.

114


GHGT11

NOTES

115

GHG/09/28

IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME 35th EXECUTIVE COMMITEE MEETING

MODELLING WORKSHOP

IEA GHG held a workshop addressing Modelling for CO2 Geological Storage, in Orleans on the 10th to 12th February, 2009. The meeting, organised by IEA GHG, BRGM, Schlumberger and CO2GeoNet, with sponsorship from Total and IFP, attracted over 100 registrations from 14 different countries; presentations covered modelling objectives, processes, special issues and potential aims and objectives for a future IEA GHG modelling network. All participants were able to contribute to the workshop, either through direct oral presentations, question sessions or through the various breakout group discussions. The workshop generated stimulating discussions on various technical themes, which will be documented in the workshop report. Much of the debate focussed on current problems encountered and related knowledge gaps in modelling studies, for example coupling various processes into models, assessing kinetics of geochemical reactions, and the issue of potential pressure increases and associated impacts from injection into deep saline formations. At the New York joint network meeting in June 2008, the formation of a geological storage modelling network was debated in detail, the outcome being agreement to hold a workshop as a starting point to gauge the level of interest. The attendance and outcome of the workshop showed overwhelming support for the formation of a network and interest was expressed by the University of Utah in hosting the first meeting in February 2010. Workshop participants discussed the rationale for a network and agreed overall aims of providing an international forum for technical experts to share knowledge and ideas, promoting collaborative projects and contributing to the development of storage performance assessment. Many ideas for specific objectives for the network were put forward, some of the more popular included online reference databases of case studies and parameters, guidance documents for practitioners and non-specialists, performance assessment input to the risk assessment network and identification of key knowledge gaps to steer future research. In addition to organising the first modelling network meeting next year, the following ‘next steps’ were debated by participants:

Issue of detailed workshop report to all participants Summary presentation of workshop outcomes to risk assessment network Modelling network website to include online discussion forum and links to code/model

comparison benchmarking studies

117

GHG/09/29


IEA GHG WEYBURN-MIDALE CO2 MONITORING AND STORAGE PROJECT

Introduction Phase 2 of the IEA GHG Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project commenced in 2007 and is due to be completed in 2011. The project is managed by the Petroleum Technology Research Centre, based in Regina. This second (final) phase aims to build on the success of the first phase (2000 to 2004) in demonstrating the safe and secure storage of geological storage CO2, with the specific objective of producing a ‘Best Practice Manual’ (BPM) to guide future storage projects. Research work on the project is organised into 4 technical themes – site selection and characterisation, wellbore integrity, monitoring and verification, and performance assessment (risk assessment and storage mechanisms). In addition, the project will also consider regulatory issues, and public communications/outreach. These technical and policy themes will form the basis of the BPM. Details of the project structure and sponsors are available in the slide presentation provided for the 33rd IEA GHG ExCo in Berlin (paper number GHG/08/19), and online at http://www.ptrc.ca/weyburn_overview.php. IEA GHG Project Involvement IEA GHG participates in the project through a memorandum of understanding and continues to provide support, with attendance at six-monthly project meetings and assistance with dissemination activities. IEA GHG is represented on the Leading Sponsors Executive Committee (LSEC) and the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) by Tim Dixon and Neil Wildgust, respectively. IEA GHG has actively participated in the policy components of the project, including a comprehensive review of BPM’s and their applicability to CO2 geological storage. A presentation on the 2009 IEA GHG study on the global application of CO2-EOR will be given at the June 2009 project meeting in Regina. Recent Developments Phase 2 research activity is at an early stage of progress. Some recent noteworthy developments include:

An additional piece of work approved recently as part of Theme 1 (Site Characterisation) involves the modelling of potential CO2 leakage flow rates through geological faults. This work adopts a novel computational approach and is being undertaken by Permedia.

Theme 4 (Performance Assessment) aims to provide a qualitative and semi-quantitative risk assessments. The methodology to be adopted for these assessments is being finalised, with discussions centred on the potential use of stakeholder workshops to identify key risk receptors.

The CO2-EOR field operator, EnCana, is planning a series of well abandonments as part of routine operations in the next year. This could provide a rare opportunity to investigate and sample wellbore materials that have been exposed to stored CO2. The project is assessing potential costs should EnCana give permission for this work, and whether additional sponsorship would be required.

119

GHG/09/30


MOVECBM

Introduction The MOVECBM project is a direct follow-on from the previous European Commission (EC) supported project, RECOPOL, in which IEA GHG had a similar role in. RECOPOL was focussed around injecting CO2 into coal seams in Poland, while the MOVECBM project is focussed on the monitoring and verification of the CO2 injected during the RECOPOL project, and aims to improve the current levels of understanding of the behaviour of CO2 injected into coal seams and the associated migration of methane within the coal seams. The MOVECBM project commenced on November 1st, 2006 and was completed on October 31st, 2009. The monitoring undertaken was combined with modelling scenarios and laboratory work in order to enable accurate predictions of the relationships and behaviour of injected gases with those in place within the coal seams. IEA GHG Involvement IEA GHG was involved with work package 5 which was concerned with the dissemination of the project results.IEA GHG was tasked with organising the projects’ final dissemination workshop. It was reported to a previous ExCo that the final dissemination meeting was planned to run following GHGT 9. However, organisational and administrative restrictions meant that the workshop would have to take place at an earlier date, and within the EU. The workshop was held following on from the 2008 General Assembly meeting, and was co-hosted by CarboSulcis, a Sardinian coal mining company. CarboSulcis were partners on the project and had expressed a desire to use the experiences of the MOVECBM project to act as support for the initiation of a CO2ECBM project of their own. The dissemination workshop outlined the pilot project planned for the region, and invitations were extended by CarboSulcis to members of the public and academic bodies from Sardinia. The presentations outlined the CCS projects throughout the EU region, highlighting the variety of options and history of activity. The next session of the workshop covered the RECOPOL and MOVECBM projects and how the process of ECBM can be used to geologically store CO2 emissions, while producing a commercially viable supply of methane gas from the coal seams. Conclusion The project has concluded on schedule, and the final report is being finalised and authorised by the EC at this time. A mass balance exercise shows that 90% of the injected CO2 was successfully stored in the coal seams. Various partners of the project have presented papers at conferences around the world, most recently at GHGT 9 and the 2nd Petrobras CCS Conerence in Salvador concluding that the global potential for ECBM in terms of CO2 storage is small, and it will only ever represent a niche option in areas where no other options exist, or are prohibitively expensive. Injection of CO2 into coal seams, based on the experience from RECOPOL and MOVECBM is fraught with problems, including coal swelling and low permeabilities and injection rates.

121

GHG/09/30

This conclusion supports the decision by IEA GHG not to launch an International Research Network on CO2ECBM, and also suggests limited benefit of proposing a study on the storage potential and development issues of CO2ECBM on a global scale. When complete, IEA GHG will offer to produce and distribute CD’s of the project results as it did with the RECOPOL precursor project. IEA GHG staff will also prepare an overview of the project for members. Financially, the costs incurred by IEA GHG were greatly reduced from the budgeted costs, due to the location of the final dissemination meeting, and its consecutive nature from the General Assembly.

122

GHG/09/31


SUMMER SCHOOL WEBSITE UPDATE

The IEA GHG summer school series has been an overwhelming success in bringing together students from around the world and from different social and academic backgrounds, and giving them a thorough overview of all aspects of CCS. So far we have had one hundred and fifteen students attend the first two summer schools from thirty four counties spread across six continents and we have had applications from thirty countries for the forthcoming third summer school alone. The spread of countries can be seen on the world map below.

The summer school is also growing in popularity with eighty students having applied to the first summer school, one hundred and twenty for the second, and over two hundred and sixty for the third. The challenge we face now however, is how we ensure the students who come to the summer school stay within the global CCS network and how do we bring in the students who apply for the summer school but are not selected to attend given the limit of sixty students for each school. To date the IEA GHG have been involved in a number of initiatives to try and address this issue such as the Kloster Seeon Summer School Yahoo CCS discussion forum, IEA GHG Summer School Facebook page, and the student panel session and reception at GHGT-9. There is also the summer school mentor programme which invites the top five students from every summer school to attend the next summer school to help with the mentoring of the students. There would however be benefit in a broader reaching initiative to ensure all CCS students from around the world have the opportunity to interact with their peers and the greater CCS industry as a whole. To help address this issue the IEA GHG are in the early planning stages of the development of an IEA GHG CCS Student website. The website will be a subsection of the current IEA GHG website in a similar way to the members’ area. Potential features that the website could contain include:

Summer school information

Summer school registration

Summer school alumni area

Photos

Discussion forum

Open or with topical seeds

Posting of PhD/Masters students topics

Student CV postings

123

GHG/09/31

CCS Jobs from our members

Database of students research

Posting of events relevant to students

Student profiles

Feature students The website could operate and be maintained in-house by IEA GHG Staff or roles such as forum manager and database manager could be delegated to students who have been summer school student mentors. Such a delegation of roles would benefit the IEA GHG resourcing, create buy-in and ownership from the students, and would be a valuable feature on the CVs of the students involved. The exact operational details of the website are still being discussed. Along with providing the students with a valuable resource the website would also provide the IEA GHG members with access to all the presentations from the summer school (which are currently on the summer school website), information on student activity including research topics and CVs, and access to a diverse student body from around the world for the purposes of simple interaction or recruitment. The IEA GHG is looking to engage other organisations in the development of the website including the RECS Summer School Programme in the US and the CSLF Capacity Building Programme. The CSLF in particular are looking at options for a similar web-based initiative and have shown interest in being involved this programme.

124

GHG/09/32


FEEDBACK FROM COP/MOP AND STATUS OF CCS CDM

Summary The CCS CDM negotiations got much further than expected, but were stopped from reaching a final decision. Hence the negotiations on this start again in SBSTA in Bonn in June 2009. CCS also started to come up in post 2012 work streams. IEA GHG achieved good impact in its role providing the evidence base into the negotiation process. IEA GHG presented the results from the new study on CCS CDM Market Effects, and these results and implications were subsequently used positively in the negotiations. CCS in the CDM The remit in Poznan (UNFCCC meetings of SBSTA-29, COP-14, CMP-4) was to reach a decision on whether and how CCS could be in the Clean Development Mechanism. This consideration has been underway for three two years, with meetings twice a year. IEA GHG was represented in Poznan by Tim Dixon. Some countries strongly want CCS in the CDM, and a few strongly do not. Countries speaking against in particular were Brazil, Micronesia, Grenada, and Venezuela. Countries speaking in favour in particular were Saudi, Norway, EU, Kuwait, Qatar, Algeria, Australia, Japan. All countries opposed to CCS at least acknowledged it had potential for climate change mitigation, but was not right for CDM. Some main arguments used against were that it is an unproven technology, it cannot be guaranteed for 100 years “come back in 100 years”, no CCS on coal power yet, no CCS in developed countries so why test on developing countries, CCS will flood the CER market, in CDM as an offset project it will help developed countries avoid domestic action but leave a long-term liability for developing countries, and it will propagate the inequitable distribution of CDM (particularly with Africa). Main arguments used for included the need for CCS in climate mitigation arguments (ref IPCC 4th AR, IEA ETP and WEO), new themes were shared learning on CCS - that CCS will help developing countries learn about CCS – and that it will help those developing countries who don’t get much CDM – eg SE Asian and African, also that it can be done now with non-coal CCS (these points informed by our CDM Market Effects report). After five negotiating meetings, there was finally agreed decision text on the table. This contained two options: Option A. CCS eligible in CDM.

a. Fully b. As limited pilot phase during the KP 1st period – the EU suggested numbers were

maximum 8 projects of max 2mtpa each (derived from our Market Effects report) Option B. CCS not eligible in CDM.

a. move to LCA (post 2012 workstream, mechanisms yet to be determined) b. make as Activities Implemented Jointly (was the pilot phase for CDM, but doesn’t

generate any credits). Having text on the table was a big step forward from before. The sixth and final negotiating meeting just had to conclude to deliver these decision text options to Ministers in Poznan (as

125

GHG/09/32

was the mandate) for them to decide between the two options. However, an additional conclusion option was included by the chair to deliver it instead in Copenhagen in 2009 (to SBSTA, not Ministers). Whilst there was strong support for the delivery of the text to Ministers in Poznan by most countries, a few countries wanted the Copenhagen option. The meeting concluded without being able to reach any agreement on this, so no text could be forwarded to anywhere. Consequently, the final conclusions agreed and presented to SBSTA-29 were “The SBSTA considered the conclusions and the draft decision proposed by the Chair. However, it did not agree to adopt these conclusions and therefore could not conclude its consideration of this issue here”. The issue will reappear on the agenda in SBSTA-30 in Bonn in June 2009, where it will start all over again with no text. In addition, late in the last day during CMP-4, work by one country got an action placed by CMP-4 on the CDM Executive Board to “assess the implications of the possible inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as clean development mechanism project activities, taking into account technical, methodological and legal issues” and reporting back to CMP-5 (Copenhagen). How this will be undertaken is uncertain at the moment, but we will try and ensure that IEA GHG evidence-base inputs into this process (CDM Methodology 2007 and CDM Market Effects 2008). To make people aware of the evidence we provide, IEA GHG met with, and in some cases liaised closely with, the negotiators on CCS CDM from EU (EC, UK, and Germany), Norway, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, South Africa, Switzerland, Brazil, Botswana, and the UNFCCC Secretariat. We also liaised with the few others present with CCS interests – e.g. Bellona, Shell and WCI. We assisted the EU to prepare counter arguments to use in the negotiations for all commonly-used technical challenges against CCS, as it was increasingly recognized that the scaremongering on CCS which happens in the negotiations could affect how CCS is treated post 2012. Post 2012 There are two work streams for post 2012. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) focuses on future commitments and actions for the Kyoto Parties. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG LCA) focussed on actions for UNFCCC Parties. The AWG KP had been meeting intensely, and included in its issues to be considered for the future CDM, some options for CCS in a future CDM (two negative, one positive option). The detail of these options was not opened up in Poznan, but is expected to be at the next AWG-KP session in Bonn in March (AWG-KP and AWG-LCA meet more frequently than SBSTA due to their importance in setting up agreements for Copenhagen in December 2009). At lot of the AWG-KP discussion in Poznan was around emissions targets for Kyoto Protocol countries for 2020, with 25-40% reductions being commonly used for developed countries, and some significant deviation from business-as-usual for developing countries. The AWG-LCA held an R&D technology workshop on Cooperation on research and development of current, new and innovative technology and several countries included CCS in their presentations. Just one country (Norway) had included CCS in its prior submission. Details of these presentations can be seen at -http://unfccc.int/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/items/4675.php . A report was issued by UNFCCC on financial and investment flows, which references our CDM Market Effects report, even though not formally published.

126

GHG/09/32

The next meeting of the AWG KP and AWG LCA wil be on Bonn, 29 March-8 April. Two further sessions will be held before COP-15 in Bonn, 1-12 June (during SBSTA 30) , and Bangkok, 28 September-9 October. More information can be found at http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_14/items/4481.php . For the official reports from Poznan, see the UNFCCC web site at http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_14/items/4481.php. For the other outcomes from Poznan, we recommend the summary report from IISD on http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12395e.pdf. Side events In the first week and before the negotiations on CCS and CDM started, there were three significant side events on CCS. An EC one on CCS in the EU, an EC one on CCS in developing countries, and a Canadian one to launch IPAC. All were very well attended (100+, standing room only), and generated good and challenging questions. A wide cross-section of people attended, including from developing countries and from NGOs and civil society. IEA GHG’s Tim Dixon and ERM’s Paul Zakkour presented the results of the recent IEA GHG study into ‘Market Effects of CCS in CDM’ at the EC’s packed side-event on ‘CCS in developing countries’. This most comprehensive study yet on the subject showed that the early low-cost CCS projects would be CO2 from natural gas separation, that there would be only a limited amount of these in the CDM by 2012 (so not flooding the CDM market), and whilst there would be more CCS projects by 2020 this would still contribute less than 10% of the CDM market, although with some effect on carbon prices then. Potential countries for these early natural gas separation CCS projects are in South East Asia, Africa, and the Gulf. These results and their implications were used in the subsequent negotiations. At the same EC side event on developing countries, the EU presented their ‘pilot phase’ idea, referring to our work, Shell presented their new methodology (which is good and shows that all the main concerns can be addressed) referring to IEA GHG earlier work, and ECN presented their methodology work. Emphasis was made by us and also others to distinguish between natural gas separation CCS, and coal power CCS, and the early learning on storage available from natural gas CCS projects. IEA GHG was active in all the Q&A sessions in these CCS side events, getting our evidence base over. A common question was on comparing nuclear waste and CO2 liabilities (nuclear relies on engineered structures, CO2 relies on natural processes which make it more secure with time). The Australian side event on GCCSI was cancelled, but was mentioned in the IPAC side event. After these, there were also side-events on CCS by Bellona, IETA, Total, and it was included in the ‘IEA-Day’ held off-site. Next Steps IEA GHG will continue to report on CCS developments from these meetings (AWGs, SBSTA 30). IEA GHG will attend SBSTA 30, with the possibility of presenting in an EC side event should they hold one, and will liaise with the CDM Executive Board over their task to assess implications, to provide evidence base from IEA GHG work.

127

GHG/09/33


IEA GHG INTERACTIONS WITH IEA

and IEA REGULATORS NETWORK

The objective of the IEA CCS Regulators’ Network is to provide regulators and policy makers with opportunities to interact with peers in an objective, neutral forum. The Network involves regulatory and policy practitioners from a variety of areas of expertise, from local, state/provincial, national, regional and international levels. Network participants present case studies and status updates, ask questions, and discuss possible solutions to challenges they face developing adequate CCS legal & regulatory frameworks. IEA GHG and University College London are co-organizers with IEA. The launch meeting of the International CCS Regulators’ Network was held on 13-14 May, 2008 at the IEA Secretariat, Paris, France. IEA GHG gave two presentations, including the scene-setting international developments and principles for CCS. Web conferences The launch meeting was followed by the first in a series of interactive web meetings, held on 10 July 2008, on carbon dioxide transport, health and safety issues. The second web conference took place on 9 October 2008 on regulation for demonstration projects. The third web conference took place on the 15 January on approaches to storage liability, moderated and scene-setting by IEA GHG (Tim Dixon), and Zurich used it to announce their new insurance products for CCS. The next web conference will be on the 20 March on finance and ETS: EU and US developments (topic chosen by IEA GHG). IEA GHG will continue its close involvement with IEA in organising future activities of this Network. All presentations and summary reports are available at http://www.iea.org/textbase/subjectqueries/ccs_network.asp .

129

GHG/09/33

IEA GHG INTERACTIONS WITH IEA IEA CCS ROADMAPPING IEA GHG is providing technical input to the IEA’s CCS Roadmapping exercise, which is in response to a G8 request. IEA GHG participated in the second IEA CCS Roadmapping workshop on 2-3 February 2009, which focussed on policy, financing, public perception and regulatory and legal issues. The next steps are subgroup teleconferences to develop metrics in specific areas, and IEA GHG will contribute to these. The capture one will be on 11 March, the transport one will be on 12 March, the storage one is on 17 March. IEA also asked IEA GHG to peer review the IEA books on reducing emissions from industries (chemical and petrochemical, pulp and paper, iron and steel, cement, aluminium).

130


Feedback on IEA Activities

NOTES

131


MEMBERS ACTIVITIES

NOTES

133

GHG/09/34


NEXT MEETINGS

Next meeting As agreed previously, the next (36th) meeting will be in Zurich, Switzerland between the 7th and 9th October 2009. The following has been agreed for subsequent ExCo meetings: Meeting Date Location Host 37th Spring 2010 Spain CUIDEN Provisional dates suggested by IEA GHG are: 9th-10th March 2010 to give some distance between the 37th and 38th ExCo meetings. The venue for the meeting is proposed as Ponferrada in Northern Spain. 38th Sept. 2010 Netherlands SenterNovem/UCE Provisional dates are: Friday 17 and Saturday 18 Sept. 2010. The meeting will be held prior to GHGT-10 scheduled for the 19th -23rd Sept. 2010 and follows the practise of earlier meetings by having the ExCo on the Friday and Saturday before the conference. The Hague is being considered as the venue for the meeting as members recently visited Amsterdam for the 39th TBC Norway has expressed interest in hosting a future ExCo meeting, possibly the 39th, in Bergen. 40th November 2011– 20th Anniversary celebration –possibly UK. Any members interested in hosting a future ExCo meeting should contact the General Manager.

135


AOB

NOTES

137

21st – 22nd April 2009 Gold Coast, Australia · 2013. 7. 25. · 35th EXCO MEETING 21st – 22nd...

Documents

Transcript of 21st – 22nd April 2009 Gold Coast, Australia · 2013. 7. 25. · 35th EXCO MEETING 21st – 22nd...