36 exco welcome plus papers 41 to 48(01).ppt exco/36 excopresentations.pdf · 2013. 7. 25. ·...

224
Welcome Welcome 36 36 th th Executive Committee Meeting Executive Committee Meeting Zurich, Switzerland Zurich, Switzerland 8 th th and 9 and 9 th th October 2009 October 2009 Hosted by: Hosted by: SFOE and and Alstom Alstom www.ieagreen.org.uk

Upload: others

Post on 02-Feb-2021

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • WelcomeWelcome3636thth Executive Committee MeetingExecutive Committee Meeting

    Zurich, SwitzerlandZurich, Switzerland88thth and 9and 9thth October 2009October 2009

    Hosted by:Hosted by:

    SFOE and and AlstomAlstom

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Operating Agents ReportOperating Agents Report(Paper GHG/09/41 refers)(Paper GHG/09/41 refers)( p )( p )

    • VAT• Status presented in paper• HMRC have not responded positively we have requested a formal• HMRC have not responded positively, we have requested a formal

    hearing• No further information available• Will continue to keep members up to date with developments

    • IEA OLC• Letter sent to CERT circulated to members and attached to paper• Letter sent to CERT circulated to members and attached to paper• Await outcome of CERT meeting in November 2009

    • John Topper attending as Operating Agent for IEA GHG and

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    IEA CCC

  • Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Progress ReportProgress Report(Paper GHG/09/42 refers)(Paper GHG/09/42 refers)(Paper GHG/09/42 refers)(Paper GHG/09/42 refers)

    • Overview of activities from May 2009 to September 2009September 2009• Five month period with summer break in between • Key activities:Key activities:

    • Office expansion• Changes to administration proceduresg p• New Staff• Network operation/conference planning

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Summer school

  • Office ChangesOffice Changes• New open plan office (up to 4 staff) set up plus some p p ( p ) p p

    internal reorganisation of offices• Completed to time and budget

    U d d d d i• Used to accommodate secondees during summer• Updated Safety manual/procedures/risk assessment• New UK HSE practises on VDU and Manual Handlingp g

    • New IT support contractor• Better able to support expanded team• Some additional cost but considered warranted

    • Administrative changesPh d

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Phone procedures • Accounts for GCCSI

  • New Staff New Staff

    www.ieagreen.org.ukEllen Murdock Mohammad Abu Zahra Laura Davis

  • StructureStructureProgramme IEA EPL

    GM

    gSupport

    Tricia WatkinsLaura Davis

    IEA EPL

    Geological Storage

    CommunicationsCapture & Integrated S

    CCS Regulatory

    Systems Support

    Stanley SantosMohammad Abu

    Tim DixonMike Haines

    Neil WildgustToby Aiken

    VacancySian TwinningMohammad Abu

    ZahraJohn Davison

    Mike HainesVacancy

    Toby Aiken Vacancy

    Sian TwinningEllen MurdochAndrea Lacey

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • SecondeesSecondeesRobert Strubbe

    Joe Da Costa,Univ. Brisbane

    Monica Lupion Univ. Sevilla

    Robert Strubbe Univ. Firenze

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Agi BurraUniv. Adelaide

    Imogen NIcholson

    Univ. Southampton, UK

  • Technical Study ProgressTechnical Study Progress2 expert workshops

    7

    8Joint with IEA CCC

    2 expert workshops on flexibility and environmental

    impacts in planning

    5

    62 Technical

    Reviews6 Being

    reported at ExCo

    2

    3

    4

    4 study reports

    0

    1

    2p

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    0Reported Being Reported Underway Out to Tender To Start

  • Other ActivitiesOther Activities

    • Operational Flexibility• Meeting arranged in November hosted by Imperial College

    • CCS and Sustainable Development• CCS and Sustainable Development • Need to have better understanding of whether/how CCS meets Sustainable

    Development criteriaProposed as study to ExCo 34 agreed to hold workshop• Proposed as study to ExCo 34, agreed to hold workshop

    • Working with SANERI• Workshop initially designed, harder than expected, very country specific,

    and uncertain about achieving desired outcomeand uncertain about achieving desired outcome• Alternative – take the best review paper on topic, and ask author to

    improve (eg adding Brazil to South Africa case study) and publish as IEA GHG TR

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    GHG TR• Less cost than full study or workshop

  • Facilitating ImplementationFacilitating ImplementationW ki ith th i ti t h l t CCS GHG iti ti tiWorking with other organizations to help promote CCS as a GHG mitigation option

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • International collaborationInternational collaboration• International research networks• International research networks

    Network Date Venue HostsRisk Assessment 16th-18th April Melbourne, CO2CRCRisk Assessment 16 18 April

    2009Melbourne, Australia

    CO2CRC

    Well Bore Integrity 13th-14th May 2009

    Calgary, Canada ARC/Theresa Watson Associates

    M it i 2nd 4th J 2009 T k J K tMonitoring 2nd-4th June 2009 Tokyo, Japan Kyoto University/AIST

    High temperature solid looping

    15th -17thSeptember 2009

    Oviedo, Spain CSICp g

    cyclesp

    Post Combustion Capture

    29th-30thSeptember 2009

    Regina, Canada University of Regina

    Social Research 2nd to 3rd Paris France CIRED

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Social Research 2nd to 3rdNovember 2009

    Paris, France CIRED

  • International collaboration (2)International collaboration (2)• Practical R&D Projects

    • DYNAMIS• Co2Remove• Co2SINK

    W b• Weyburn

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Dissemination activitiesDissemination activitiesO h l f b it h d• Overhaul of web sites has commenced

    • 21 presentations given at 12 external conferences• “What have we learnt session organised at 8th Annual Carbon Sequestration

    Conference in Pittsburgh USA in May 2009

    Key Dates:• 15th September 2009 -

    Web site Open

    g y

    Web site Open• 15th December 2010 -

    Abstract submission• 18th May 2010 -

    Notifications• 31st August 2010 -

    Paper submission date

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    date• 19th -23rd September -

    2010 Conference

  • GHGTGHGT--10 Sponsors10 Sponsors

    • Confirmed• Main: VROM, Shell & EoN

    Benelux

    • In Discussion• Alstom

    St t il H dBenelux• Gold: GCCSI, BP, • Sponsors:

    • Statoil Hydro• Chevron• Exxon Mobil

    • EBN, USDOE, Schlumberger

    Sponsorship target (€1.5m) on target (€1.05m already)Any other members wishing to sponsor GHGT-10 should contactAny other members wishing to sponsor GHGT-10 should contact the General ManagerSponsorship Portfolio has been circulated to members

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • GHGTGHGT--11 Status11 Status• Note sent to all South East Asian/Australasian members as

    requested at last ExCo.Positive response from RITE Japan to host GHGT 11 in• Positive response from RITE, Japan to host GHGT-11 in Kyoto in 2012.• Requesting support from METI q g pp• Kyoto conference centre provisionally booked

    • Action• Members are requested to agree to Japan hosting 2012 GHGT• IEA GHG to proceed with single tender for GHGT-11• IEA GHG to proceed once tender received to draw up a MOU with

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    p pRITE to agree operational duties between RITE and IEA GHG

  • Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Update on GCCSI InteractionsUpdate on GCCSI Interactions(Paper GHG/09/43 refers)(Paper GHG/09/43 refers)( p )( p )

    • At 35th ExCo members agreed for IEA GHG to proceed with a co-operative research agreement with GCCSI

    • Status:• Research provider agreement signed and monies for 2009

    transferredtransferred• Modus operandi agreed• Finance system modified to have ring fenced account for GCCSI

    within existing IEA GHG accountswithin existing IEA GHG accounts• First deliverables (reports sent)• Impurities specification agreed and tendering in process

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Research network on public communication established• Sponsorship for GHGT-10 agreed

  • Update on GCCSI InteractionsUpdate on GCCSI Interactions• IEA GHG has become a Foundation Member of• IEA GHG has become a Foundation Member of

    GCCSI• GCCSI membership of IEA GHG will be approved atGCCSI membership of IEA GHG will be approved at

    November CERT meeting• IEA GHG has the option to become a “legal member” p g

    of GCCSI• IEA GHG allowed to vote on GCCSI work programme

    • “no conflict of interest”• no conflict of interest• Small contingent liability AUS$10

    ActionM b t f IEA GHG t b l l b f

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Members to agree for IEA GHG tobecome a legal member of GCCSI

  • Members AccountsMembers Accounts(Paper GHG/09/44 refers)(Paper GHG/09/44 refers)(Paper GHG/09/44 refers)(Paper GHG/09/44 refers)

    • Statutory audited accounts approved at IEA EPL Board meeting in August 2009

    • Accounts circulated to members for comments

    ActionAction• Members requested to approve accounts

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Financial OverviewFinancial Overview

    • Now producing one annual budget in line with UK tax year as agreed at 34th ExCo meeting

    • Budget for 2009/10 approved by members at 35th ExCo

    • Provide a financial overview at this meeting

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Membership AdjustmentsMembership Adjustments• Members are reminded that:

    • At 35th ExCo members agreed to extend membership year by 4 months to bring membership year in line with UK tax year

    • The effect is:• The effect is:• Invoices will go out as normal in December in 2009• In December 2010 we will invoice for a 16th month year• In April 2012 and thereafter we will invoice for 12 months

    Action

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Any member who feels this might cause them problems should contact the General Manager in advance of the change

  • Financial OverviewFinancial Overview• IncomeIncome

    • Membership subscriptions• Expected income £1 505k• Expected income £1, 505k• All subscriptions recieved

    • Sponsorship in line with expectations• Sponsorship in line with expectations• Bank interest – lower than expected – now only

    0 2%0.2%• Moving some money to bonds to improve interest rates• Money in US Dollar accounts placed in treasury account

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Financial OverviewFinancial OverviewExpenditure• Expenditure• 16 studies in progress – total value £810K• 10 will end within year total value £575k• 10 will end within year – total value £575k• Other costs (staff travel/communications) currently

    running at £60k per monthg p• Meeting expenditure - £20k to date

    • Summaryy• Budget set to balance expenditure against income• Based on information available we expect budget to be

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    on target

  • Financial OverviewFinancial Overview

    • Reserves• Treasury reserve - £1,400ky• Working capital - £1,920K

    • GHGT-9, GCCSI moneyy• Monies in US$, Can$ and € accounts

    • Winding up fund provision – £287kg p p

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Guidelines For MembershipGuidelines For Membership(Paper GHG/09/46 Refers)(Paper GHG/09/46 Refers)(Paper GHG/09/46 Refers)(Paper GHG/09/46 Refers)

    • Guidelines presented to members at 35th ExCo• Guidelines modified based on comments• Guidelines modified based on comments

    received and circulated to members for commentcomment

    • Minor comments received and Guidelines modified accordinglymodified accordingly

    Action

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Members requested to approve Guidelines

  • Phase 6 Phase 6 -- Outline StrategyOutline Strategy(Paper GHG/09/47 Refers)(Paper GHG/09/47 Refers)(Paper GHG/09/47 Refers)(Paper GHG/09/47 Refers)

    • Draft Outline Strategy presented to members at 35th ExCo• Outline Strategy document modified based on comments

    received and circulated to members for comment• To date only minor comments received and document will

    be modified accordinglybe modified accordinglyAction• Members requested to approve Outline Strategy• Members requested to approve Outline Strategy• The General Manager will then develop a detailed strategy

    document for members consideration.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Membership Issues/New MembersMembership Issues/New Members(Paper GHG/09/48 refers)(Paper GHG/09/48 refers)(Paper GHG/09/48 refers)(Paper GHG/09/48 refers)

    • New Japanese MembersRITE C t ti P t i t d f NEDO• RITE new Contracting Party instead of NEDO

    • Membership in Progress• CEPAC/Brazil invited at 33rd ExCo – no

    progress• ENEL invited as a sponsor at 34th ExCo

    • Need to await CERT meeting outcome

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • GCCSI – already reported

  • Membership Issues/New MembersMembership Issues/New Members• New Member

    • EnBW sent EOI to IEA GHG to join as a sponsorG d E BW’ li i• Germany approved EnBW’s application

    • IEA OLC confirmed that EnBW meet sponsor criteriaNo comments from membership• No comments from membership

    ActionAction• Members to invite EnBW to join as a sponsor• General Manager to complete negotiations and formalities

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    General Manager to complete negotiations and formalities of membership

  • Interested partiesInterested parties

    • IIE of Mexico interested in joining IEA GHG• Need to await CERT meeting outcomeg

    • China – more proactive approach needed if we are to get them on boardg

    • Poland – interest rekindled • DoosanBabcock and Marathon Oil approached• DoosanBabcock and Marathon Oil approached

    GM for membership detailsB ll i t t ithd

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Bellona – interest withdrawn

  • Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?Happy to take Questions or Comments?

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • P l f Proposal for Carbon Capture & Storage Webinar Series

    In association with the IEA-GHG and Elsevier

    A proposal to broadcast and promote a series of presentations and discussions on current developments in the Carbon Capture and

    Storage (CCS) industry via an online Elsevier webinar to a targeted audience.

    Connect With The Largest Global Scientific Community

  • Webinars

    Content Video or audio multimedia content Slides, biographies, Q&A, interactive polling Editorial or sponsor-driven subject matter Panel of experts and/or moderator Live event or hosted archive e e e o os ed a c e

    Elsevier Webcast services Email invitations to IEA-GHG lists, Elsevier’s

    readership and authors and sponsor contacts readership and authors and sponsor contacts Advertising on IEA-GHG and Elsevier websites,

    including ScienceDirect All qualified leads generated from user registration All qualified leads generated from user registration Audience feedback from interactive surveys or Q&A sessionsComplete management of entire webcast: Logistics hosting and archi ing

    Connect With The Largest Global Scientific Community3

    Click here fore a Sample Webinar Logistics, hosting and archiving

  • Key criteria for a successful webinar

    1. A highly interesting and topical subject2 Key opinion leading speakers with strong presentation skills2. Key opinion leading speakers with strong presentation skills3. Scientific integrity and trustworthy source(s)4. Audience generation and participation

    Connect With The Largest Global Scientific Community

  • Measurable benefits of a sponsored webinar

    IEA-GHG/Elsevier webinars provide valuable benefits to Sponsors Rapidly deliver data about research, products and/or services Raise awareness by associating a sponsor message and branding in association

    with quality scientific content Hosting a webinar through Elsevier gives the sponsor access to a targeted

    audienceaudience A non-labour intensive marketing activity for the sponsor, as Elsevier will handle

    complete project management Generate maximum exposure through live participant interaction Qualified leads through customized registration fields

    Valuable usage statistics and reports will be passed on to the sponsor including: Audience feedback from interactive surveys or Q&A sessions Audience feedback from interactive surveys or Q&A sessions Provide registrant numbers in lead up to the webinar event All qualified leads generated from user registration to view the webinar

    Connect With The Largest Global Scientific Community

  • Webinar process

    Proposal t Pre-Event Live Event

    Post-E tstage

    • Choose Subject• Appoint Webinar Chair /

    M d t

    Pre Event

    • Finalise agenda• Design templates:

    Live Event

    • Speakers to be in studio or on phone well in advance of start of

    Event

    • Archiving of Webinar for on-demand usersP ti i t t ti tiModerator

    • Select speakers• Decide on final project

    details• Date & Time• Video or audio

    • Registration form• Brand webinar “home

    page”• Emails• Prepare polling questions• Submit speaker bio’s

    in advance of start of the webinar

    • Moderator/Chair welcomes participants from X number of countries, and explains interactivity

    • Participants statistics & leads report

    • Invoicing

    Video or audio• Live or on-demand• Duration• Choose target

    audience(s) for marketing campaignD id di

    Submit speaker bio s, pictures and references

    • Promote event• Invitation emails• Banner campaigns• Registration confirmation

    il

    interactivity• Moderator oversees

    and prioritises Q&A session

    • Polls can be timed during the speaker’s sessions• Decide on audience

    generation methods• Finalise sponsor contract

    emails• Reminder emails

    • Speakers to submit slides• Dry/rehearsal run

    sessions

    Connect With The Largest Global Scientific Community

  • Sponsorship fee

    Price per webinar, including:Price per webinar, including:  60 streaming minutes (45 min. presentation, 15 min Q&A)  Invitation and follow up marketing emails to relevant Elsevier audiences Banner advertising campaign on relevant Elsevier web pages 1 month prior to the live event 

    (150,000 banner impressions)(150,000 banner impressions)  Registration and Reporting  Presenter training  Basic editing  Three (3) months archive hostingThree (3) months archive hosting

    Product  Details  Price 

    Video webinar Includes:  Camera crew and studio hire in London/NY 

    US$ 23,000/

    Excludes:  Any presenter honorarium, if applicable Speakers T&E to studio location

    Series of  3 at US$ 62,500

    Series of 5 at US$ 100,000

    A di W bi E l dAudio Webinar  Excludes:  Any presenter honorarium, if applicable

    US$  12,500 

    Series of  3 at US$ 33,000

    Series of 5 at US$ 50,000

    Connect With The Largest Global Scientific Community

    Extended archiving & reporting 

    To allow participants to attend the recorded webinar after the first three months 

    US$ 300 per month 

  • Update on Rebranding Exercise / New Update on Rebranding Exercise / New LogoLogo ((GHG/09/50)GHG/09/50)Logo Logo ((GHG/09/50)GHG/09/50)

    • At the 34th ExCo, members agreed for the GM to enlist f i l i t t d l l d C tprofessional assistance to develop a new logo and Corporate

    Identity for IEA GHG.• 2 sources:2 sources:

    • Russell Mills, professional photographer / designer,• Working on IEA GHG image library, and Annual Review 2008.

    • SevernPrint / Vision, printers and designers,• Used regularly for various publications and newsletter layout / design.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Briefing & MeetingsBriefing & Meetings• All parties invited to initial briefing meetingAll parties invited to initial briefing meeting,• Background explained,• Ideas sought,• Subsequent meetings discussed ideas,• Both parties brought design ideas, • Decision to play to strengths,p y g ,

    • Russ Mills to focus on logo,• SevernPrint / Vision to incorporate into corporate identity and

    usage guidelinesusage guidelines.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Name IssuesName Issues• Current ‘IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme’ too long,Current IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme too long,

    hence shortening,• Often miss-quoted as IEA, • Move towards IEA GHG,• Text and image location:

    • IEA GHG with symbol central,• IEA GHG with symbol first,

    • Second option further reduces confusionSecond option further reduces confusion

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Logo Design and DevelopmentLogo Design and Development• In all, over 20 designs, with many variations of each assessed, , g , y ,

    and elements of several combined into final choice,• This was then discussed and minor variations created,• Consultation with web designer highlighted 2 further issues• Consultation with web designer highlighted 2 further issues,• Option of design variants dependant on logo usage, size and

    placement.W b d d ll l ith t f ‘ t li ’• Web usage demands smaller logo, without use of ‘strap-line’, while publications facilitate use of larger logo with ‘strap-line’,

    • Strap-line debated at length, and final choice: ‘Working to reduce the levels of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.’

    • Some colour changes also possible, dependant on background (see website image)

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    ( g )

  • Final Logo ChoiceFinal Logo Choice• Primary logo with strap-line, • 2 Options without strap-line,

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Design Elements (DE)Design Elements (DE)• Used to identify corporate publications / documents without excessive useUsed to identify corporate publications / documents without excessive use

    of logo,• Use of ‘swoop’ across base of page,

    • Filled,Filled, • Shaded image,

    • Globe from logo watermark, or bleeding off page,• Increases familiarity of logo• Increases familiarity of logo,

    • Title banner,• Again, can bleed off page with title or captions, gives consistent yet

    adaptable styleadaptable style,• Fonts,

    • Myriad Pro family of fonts to be used for publications, glossy brochures etc with Minion Pro for technical reports

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    etc, with Minion Pro for technical reports.

  • DE1: ‘Swoop’DE1: ‘Swoop’• Four key options:y p

    • Solid; colour fade image; strong image; fade image.

    • Colours from corporate colour palette have specific restrictions to avoid ‘ l h’ bi ti

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    ‘clash’ combinations,• Fade can be varied by multiples of 10% to achieve desired look.

  • DE 2: ‘Globe’DE 2: ‘Globe’Th Gl b b l f th l b d f d d ‘id tif i• The Globe symbol from the logo can be used as a faded ‘identifying mark’ on a page, as a whole behind text, or bleeding off the edge of a page in various positions and sizes:

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • DE 3: ‘Title Banner’DE 3: ‘Title Banner’

    • This mock up of the re-d i d l tt idesigned newsletter gives examples of the title banner used for heading and also subheadingssubheadings.

    • The faded caption underneath images uses a similar design, ensuring consistency acrossensuring consistency across the brand.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Website UsageWebsite Usage• Website design• Website design,

    using new logo and new design.

    • Globe on logo uses gdifferent colours depending on background.

    • Strap-line not used• Strap-line not used on website as on small logo it becomes unclear.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Next StepsNext Steps• ExCo requested to approve logo and design package,q pp g g p g• Following approval, Russ Mills will create style sheets for headed

    paper, business cards, compliment slips and PowerPoint slides,• SevernPrint / Vision will prepare corporate identity usage guidelines for• SevernPrint / Vision will prepare corporate identity usage guidelines for

    IEA GHG staff to adhere to,• Printers invited to tender for initial printing of supplies,

    N l tt t f ll t l f l ( l li f i• Newsletter re-vamp to follow style of logo (along lines of cover image shown earlier).

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Long Term Integrity of COLong Term Integrity of CO22 Storage Storage –– Well Well AbandonmentAbandonment ((GHG/09/50)GHG/09/50)Abandonment Abandonment ((GHG/09/50)GHG/09/50)

    • Study commenced August 2008 by TNO,• Reviewed abandonment techniques and described methods

    of abandonment,• Highlighted case studies illustrating range of factors• Highlighted case studies illustrating range of factors

    impacting wellbore integrity,• Reviewed regulatory instruments,e e ed egu ato y st u e ts,• Assessed risk management methodologies and extracted

    best practice.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Abandonment Techniques 1Abandonment Techniques 1• Balanced Plug: bridge plug set at required depth, forming base of plug,Balanced Plug: bridge plug set at required depth, forming base of plug,

    cement is pumped onto this bridge plug, effectively abandoning the well.

    • Common method, simple application, lower costs,Common method, simple application, lower costs,• Methodology causes potential for cement contamination, if

    contamination occurs, then possible compromise of well integrity.

    • Cement Squeeze: injecting at pressure, forces slurry through perforations, cement then sets to form a seal.

    • Often used as remedial measure for damaged wells, difficult to calculate exact quantity of cement necessary.

    • Can cause problems for future removal / work over.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    p

  • Abandonment Techniques 2Abandonment Techniques 2• Dump Bailer: Wire-line tool lowered into well, and deposits exact volume ofDump Bailer: Wire line tool lowered into well, and deposits exact volume of

    cement at desired position.

    • Precise cement quantities are used, due to known bailer capacity,Precise cement quantities are used, due to known bailer capacity,• Cement can set prematurely during lowering, therefore method more

    suited to shallow depths.

    • Two-Plug: top and bottom plugs are set at exact depths, allowing accurate placement.

    • Bottom plug cleans well on way down, reducing possibility of contamination,

    • Complex process, but if performed correctly, enables accurate

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    p p , p y,prediction of cement performance.

  • Case Studies 1Case Studies 1• De Lier field, The Netherlands.

    • Illustrates common concerns over wellbore integrity,• Abandoned wells in the area give rise to HSE risks,

    Implications of regulation• Implications of regulation,• 3 abandonments with significantly shorter cement plugs than more

    modern abandonments,• Stacked reservoir leads to additional complexities,• Other issues centred around access, as residential and light

    industrial development has taken place, obscuring access to some abandoned wells.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Case Studies 2Case Studies 2• Gulf Coast, SACROC.

    • Often used as case study due to high number of wells, and production history,

    • Many early wells were not subject to regulated abandonment• Many early wells were not subject to regulated abandonment,• Oil crisis in the mid 1980’s resulted in some wells not being cement

    plugged due to company insolvency,Hi hli ht b fit f P tl d t i t ti i• Highlights benefits of Portland cement in protecting casing,

    •Alteration zones evident due to mineral carbonation,•Studies indicate that the cement would have retained its initial integrity and would be

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    initial integrity, and would be suitable for CO2 containment

  • Case Studies 3Case Studies 3

    • Alberta Basin, Canada.• Large source of data available on most wells,Large source of data available on most wells,• Good example of impact of regulation,• Reviews of well failures show that improvements in regulatory

    requirements in 1994 had a direct effect reducing well failuresinrequirements in 1994 had a direct effect, reducing well failuresin wells abandoned after this date.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Regulatory ReviewRegulatory Review• Reviewed 11 regulatory regimes,• Regulators have access to vast amount of information and

    toolstools,• Regulations provide guidelines for abandonment,• All stipulate cement plug,

    G t i t i t l l th• Great variety in cement plug length,• Biggest barrier in comparing regulations is language, most

    regulations are only available in local language

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Risk ManagementRisk Management• Identified tools available for risk management, illustrating wide range of g g g

    tools and capabilities,• Used to categorise factors and rank impact level on wellbore integrity,• Data analysed, but also rationalised: y

    • For example, Alberta regulations did not include compulsory testing until 1995. As little data is available before this date, this distorts analysis of age factor. It cannot therefore be confirmed if well age has a great impact on wellbore integritywellbore integrity,

    • Different licensee’s may use different abandonment practices, leading to a minor impact on wellbore integrity,

    • Oil price at the time of abandonment has a major impact; when oil prices p j p ; pand demand is high, data suggests that extraction processes may compromise wellbore integrity in order to maximise production rates.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Best PracticeBest Practice• Knowledge is present to identify best practices; experience of industry and

    research can be combined to maximise wellbore integrity, and ensure containment of CO2.

    • Recommended best practice comprises 4 key elements:• Use of advanced materials; cements and sealants,• Reducing permeability of cement; by reducing water content, or control of density,• Non-Portland cement usage; less reactive with wet CO2,• Self healing cements and swelling materials; contain additives that react with fluids

    to block cracks and prevent flow. These swell on contact with wwater, hydrocarbons, or both.or both.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • ConclusionsConclusions• Study demonstrates that there is a great deal of knowledge and y g g

    experience gained through industrial and research activities, • This isn’t always communicated effectively,• When liaising with regulators and public this knowledge and• When liaising with regulators and public, this knowledge and

    understanding must be highlighted,• Ability to design and drill wells to effectively contain CO2 is possible,

    and this must be advertisedand this must be advertised,• Remains for regulatory regimes to offer clear guidance on

    recommended best practices, • Valuable outcome of study is analysis of risk management

    methodologies, illustrating the range of tools available.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • RecommendationsRecommendations

    • Regulations to be provided with official English language translation to facilitate international cooperation,

    • Regulations should be freely available for whoever wishes to read• Regulations should be freely available for whoever wishes to read them,

    • Best Practice should be clearly defined within regulations.

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Storage CoefficientsStorage Coefficients(Paper (Paper GHG/09/52 GHG/09/52 refers)refers)

    • CSLF and US DOE storage resource estimation methodologies require development of coefficients

    • Study proposal approved by ExCo33y p p pp y• Study undertaken by Energy and Environment Research

    Centre, University of North Dakota• Co-sponsored by US DOECo spo so ed by US O• Main aims of the study:

    • Review storage resource estimation methodologies and associated resource classification schemes;

    • Compile database of key parameters from injection projects and associated modelling studies;

    • Develop a series of storage coefficients that can be applied to regional reso rce s r e s

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    regional resource surveys;• Consider hydrocarbon fields and saline formations

  • Methodologies Proposed ClassificationMethodologies• Focus on US DOE and

    CSLF methods

    Proposed Classification

    • Two most widely applied methods

    • Methods are very similar from computational viewpoint with resultsviewpoint, with results easily compared

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Depleted Hydrocarbon FieldsDepleted Hydrocarbon Fields

    • US DOE and CSLF methodologies both include volumetric approaches to resource estimation

    • CSLF also includes alternative mass balance approach – storage resource estimation based pp gon recoverable HC reserves, as used by recent IEA GHG studies

    • Decision taken not to develop HC field coefficients for volumetric approach in this

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    ppstudy

  • Deep Saline Formations Deep Saline Formations

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • MethodologyMethodology

    • Paucity of ‘real-world’ projects and data• Approach employed: modelling from database pp p y g

    of likely DSF characteristics developed from HC field databases and literature search

    • Provided statistical datasets for modelling• Uniform injection and evaluation scheme• Uniform injection and evaluation scheme

    developed for modelling runs• Coefficients for Effective Resource derived at

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Coefficients for Effective Resource derived at site scale and extrapolated to formation scale

  • Modelling AssumptionsModelling Assumptions

    • Coefficients derived for time at cessation of injection

    • Trapping dominated by physical containment, but solution and residual trapping also includedpp g

    • Plumes defined by the extent of free-phase CO2CO2

    • Homogeneous models initially run with averaged properties to assess parameter

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    averaged properties to assess parameter sensitivity

  • Modelling Modelling

    • Approximately 200 simulations run with statistically-derived heterogeneous models

    • Coefficients derived for separately for 3 lithologies g

    • Structural setting found to exert biggest influence on storage efficiency at site scaleinfluence on storage efficiency at site scale

    • Site scale modelling results extrapolated to formations scale assuming open system

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    formations scale, assuming open system

  • Formation Level Coefficients for Formation Level Coefficients for Effective ResourceEffective Resource

    Lithology Storage Coefficients (%) by probability percentile

    P10 P50 P90P10 P50 P90

    Clastics 1.9 2.7 6.0

    Dolomite 2.6 3.3 5.5

    Limestone 1.4 2.0 3.3

    All 1.7 2.6 5.1

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Expert ReviewExpert Review

    • Reviews received on draft report from 11 experts; many detailed technical comments

    • Some key observations/queries:• Better explanation of applicability to projects;ette e p a at o o app cab ty to p ojects;• Clearly explained relationship to classification;• Further discussion of scale issues;• Further discussion of scale issues;• Significance of onshore versus offshore;

    Sensitivity to injection rate assumptions

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Sensitivity to injection rate assumptions

  • ConclusionsConclusions

    • Study concentrated on CSLF/US DOE methods applied to deep saline formations

    • DSF properties represented by database constructed from hydrocarbon field datay

    • Modelling showed influence of various factors on storage efficiency and allowed derivation ofon storage efficiency and allowed derivation of coefficients for effective storage resource

    • Results can be used to assist regional storage

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Results can be used to assist regional storage resource estimation

  • RecommendationsRecommendations

    The analysis and conclusions presented by the study are based on theoretical modelling. As experience and data is gained from increasing numbers of actual injection projects, the results of this study and the storage coefficients derived should be re-assessed at an appropriate point in the future using real-world data. This could form the basis of a future IEA

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    GHG study.

  • GHG/09/53 CO2GHG/09/53 CO2--EOR StudyEOR Study

    • Undertaken by Advanced Resources International, based in the USA

    • Global study involving:• Characterisation of hydrocarbon basinsC a acte sat o o yd oca bo bas s• Estimation of OOIP• Judgement of CO2-EOR potential• Judgement of CO2-EOR potential• Estimation of CO2 storage potential

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Current Status of CO2Current Status of CO2--EOREOR

    • Extensive application in USA over decades• Application requires suitable reservoirs (depth, pp q ( p ,

    API), sufficient unrecovered oil, CO2 source• Negligible application outside North America –Negligible application outside North America

    why?• Main reason: lack of CO2 sources close toMain reason: lack of CO2 sources close to

    oilfields• Other reasons e g North Sea – need for buffer

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Other reasons, e.g. North Sea need for buffer storage, platform modifications

  • Asia & Pacific 9Central and S America 7Europe 2Former Soviet Union 6Middl E t d Af i 13

    www.ieagreen.org.uk3

    Middle East and Africa 13North America 15

  • Establishing the COEstablishing the CO22--EOR TargetEOR Targetstab s g t e COstab s g t e CO22 O a getO a get

    EOR Target Rationale

    Certain fields within a basin may be too h ll t i il t h f

    Volume(Billion Barrels of oil)

    % of OOIP

    OilAmenable

    for CO2-EOR

    Oil in Fields Some reservoirs are too small,

    shallow or contain oil too heavy for miscible CO2-EOR operations

    2,156 48%

    Accessible to CO2-EOR Operations

    OOIP in basins with favorable

    or otherwise inaccessible to CO2-EOR operations

    3,213 72%

    Five basins did not with favorable

    characteristics for CO2-EOR operations

    The total volume of OOIP

    4,368 98% meet criteria for Miscible CO2-EOR

    www.ieagreen.org.uk4

    Total OOIP in the 52 basins will not be available for CO2-EOR

    4,465 100%

  • Top 10 World Basins for CO2-EOR

    Mesopotamian Foredeep Basin

    Greater Ghawar Uplift

    West Siberian BasinWest Siberian Basin

    Zagros Fold Belt

    Rub Al Khali Basin

    Volga Ural RegionVolga-Ural Region

    Maracaibo Basin

    Permian

    North Sea Graben

    0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

    North Sea Graben

    Villahermosa Uplift

    CO2 Demand

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    CO2 Volume (Million Tons)CO2 DemandCO2 Supply

  • Top 10 World Basins for CO2-EOR(As ranked by access to CO2 supplies)

    Mid-Continent Basins

    East/Central Texas Basins

    R ki B iRockies Basins

    Bohaiwan Basin

    Gulf Coast Basins

    Willi t B i USWilliston Basin, US

    Williston Basin, Canada

    Carpathian-Balkanian Basin

    S li B i

    0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

    Songliao Basin

    Gippsland Basin

    CO2 Demand

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    CO2 Volume (Million Tons)CO2 DemandCO2 Supply

  • Options to Increase CO2Options to Increase CO2--EOR CapacityEOR Capacity

    • Earlier application of CO2-EOR in the oil field production

    • Development and use of ‘next generation’ CO2-EOR technologygy

    • Application of CO2-EOR to residual oil zones beneath ‘traditional’ reservoir accumulationsbeneath traditional reservoir accumulations

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Expert ReviewExpert Review

    • Comments received from 6 reviewers:

    • Further discussion of extrapolation from US basins• Details and justification for statistical approach• More details of ‘next generation’ technologies• Discussion of results from other studies• Distinction between sandstone and carbonate reservoirs• Distinction between sandstone and carbonate reservoirs• Benchmarking of study against field results

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • ConclusionsConclusions

    • CO2-EOR applied in USA due to CO2 sources• CO2-EOR potential in 52 world basins derived p

    from OOIP (USGS dataset)• Criteria for CO2-EOR extrapolated from USACriteria for CO2 EOR extrapolated from USA• New global resource estimate 140Gt, could be

    reduced to 65Gt by source-sink matchingreduced to 65Gt by source-sink matching• The methodology used in this study could be

    applied in future to more detailed regional

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    applied in future to more detailed, regional studies of CO2-EOR

  • Site Selection and Characterisation CriteriaSite Selection and Characterisation Criteria(Paper GHG/09/54 refers)(Paper GHG/09/54 refers)

    • Study undertaken by Alberta Research Council, from October 2008 to March 2009October 2008 to March 2009

    • Context : Study “Selection and Qualification of Sites –CO2QUALSTORE” b DNV i idi lit tiCO2QUALSTORE” by DNV is providing a qualitative procedure to select storage sites. This study provides criteria information which could be used in this process.

    • Main aim of the study :• Provide a synthesis and classification of site

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    ycharacterisation criteria for site selection.

  • Scope and MethodScope and Method

    Scope• To include saline formations and hydrocarbon reservoirs,

    not coal bedsnot coal beds• Concentrate on safety and security of storage

    Method• Literature review, since IPCC SR (2005)• Build on CO2STORE and CO2CRC workBuild on CO2STORE and CO2CRC work• Expert opinion

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Classification of Selection CriteriaClassification of Selection Criteria

    Fundamental requirements• Sufficient storage capacity (porosity and thickness)• Sufficient storage capacity (porosity and thickness)• Sufficient permeability to allow injection• Containment

    Two stage process• Eliminatory criteria• Eliminatory criteria• Favourable criteria

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Critical, Essential, Desirable

  • Previous work Previous work -- CO2STORECO2STOREPositive Indicators Cautionary Indicators

    Storage CapacityTotal storage capacity

    Total capacity estimated to be much larger than the total amount produced from the CO2 source

    Total capacity estimated to be similar to or less than the total amount produced from the CO2 source

    Reservoir PropertiesDepth Between 1000 and 2500 m < 800 m or > 2500 mReservoir thickness > 50 m < 20 mP it > 20% < 10%Porosity > 20% < 10%Permeability > 300 mD < 10-100 mDSalinity > 100,000 mg/l (ppm) < 30,000 mg/l (ppm)

    Caprock Propertiesp pLateral continuity Unfaulted Lateral variations, faultedThickness > 100 m < 20 mCapillary entry pressure

    Much greater than buoyancy force of maximum predicted height of CO2 column

    Similar to the buoyancy force of maximum predicted height of CO2 column

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Chadwick et al, 2008

  • Site Selection CriteriaSite Selection CriteriaCriterion

    LevelNo Criterion Eliminatory or unfavourable Preferred or Favourable

    LevelCritical 1 Reservoir-seal pairs; extensive and competent

    barrier to vertical flowPoor, discontinuous, faulted and/or breached Intermediate and excellent; many

    pairs (multi-layered system)2 Pressure regime Overpressured: pressure gradients greater

    than 14 kPa/mPressure gradients less than 12 kPa/m

    3 Monitoring potential Absent Present4 Affecting protected groundwater quality Yes No4 Affecting protected groundwater quality Yes No

    Essential5 Seismicity High Moderate and less6 Faulting and fracturing intensity Extensive Limited to moderate7 Hydrogeology Short flow systems, or compaction flow;

    Saline aquifers in communication with protected groundwater aquifers

    Intermediate and regional-scale flow

    D i bl 8 D th < 750 800 >800Desirable 8 Depth < 750-800 m >800 m9 Located within fold belts Yes No10 Adverse diagenesis+ Significant Low to moderate11 Geothermal regime Gradients ≥ 35 ºC/km and/or high surface

    temperature Gradients < 35 ºC/km and low surface temperature

    12 Temperature < 35 ºC ≥ 35 ºC13 Pressure < 7.5 MPa ≥ 7.5 MPa14 Thickness < 20 m ≥ 20 m15 Porosity < 10% ≥ 10%16 Permeability < 20 mD ≥ 20 mD17 Caprock thickness < 10 m ≥ 10 m18 Well density High Low to moderate

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    18 Well density High Low to moderate

  • Additional Criteria for CO2Additional Criteria for CO2--EOREORR i P t Mi ibl CO EORReservoir Parameter Miscible CO2-EOR

    Size (ROIP in MMstb; or MtCO2) ≥1 (whichever condition is met first)Depth (ft/m) >1500 (>450)

    Temperature (ºF/ºC) 82 to 250 (28 to 121)dPressure > MMP and < Pf

    Porosity (%) ≥3Permeability (mD) ≥5Oil Gravity (API) 27 to 45

    Oil Viscosity (cP/mPa·s) ≤6Remaining Oil Fraction in the

    Reservoir≥0.30

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Expert Review CommentsExpert Review Comments• 6 external reviewers

    • Very positive overall particularly the summary tables• Very positive overall, particularly the summary tables

    • Onshore not always favourable

    • Guidance only, application always by experts

    • Caution against over-emphasis on seismic monitoring

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • ConclusionsConclusions

    • Sites should be properly characterised• Provides a synthesis and classification of site

    characterisation criteria for site selectioncharacterisation criteria for site selectionImportant caveat

    • These criteria and values only as guidance, should not be used in isolation, need to be applied by experienced experts to site-specific conditions

    • Included into DNV CO2QUALSTORE “Guideline for Selection Characterisation and Qualification of Sites”

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Selection, Characterisation, and Qualification of Sites (final draft due October 2009)

  • TechnoTechno--Economic Evaluation of Biomass Fired or CoEconomic Evaluation of Biomass Fired or Co--Fired Power Plant with PostFired Power Plant with Post--Combustion COCombustion CO22 capturecapture

    (P GHG/09/55 f )(P GHG/09/55 f )(Paper GHG/09/55 refers)(Paper GHG/09/55 refers)• Study undertaken by Foster Wheeler Italiana SpA, from

    December 2008 to July 2009.December 2008 to July 2009.

    • Main aims of the study :T l t th t h i f ibilit f i t lli• To evaluate the techno-economic feasibility of installing CO2 capture plant in a biomass fired or co-fired power plants.

    • To examine the possible impact on the economics of the power plant based on the benefits to be gained

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    from the “Green” and “ETS” certificates mechanism

  • Scope of the StudyScope of the Study• Covers 4 different Cases

    • Case 01 – Nominal 500MWe SCPC with Biomass Co-Fired Power Plant.• Case 02 – Nominal 500MWe SC-CFB with Biomass Co-Fired Power Plant.• Case 03 – Nominal 250MWe biomass fired subcritical CFB.• Case 04 – Nominal 75MWe biomass fired subcritical CFB.

    • Only Post-Combustion Capture process using standard MEA areOnly Post Combustion Capture process using standard MEA are examined.

    • Economic evaluation covers 4 different scenarios:• Scenario 01 No incentives to be gained from Green or ETS certificate• Scenario 01 – No incentives to be gained from Green or ETS certificate.• Scenario 02 – Only the Green Certificate are considered.• Scenario 03 – Only the ETS Certificate are considered.

    S i 04 B th ETS d G C tifi t id d

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Scenario 04 – Both ETS and Green Certificate are considered.

  • AssumptionsAssumptions• The Economics assumed the following for the various• The Economics assumed the following for the various

    reference cases:• Economic life of 25 years using 10% IRR.• Fuel Price

    • Coal (2.90 Euros/GJ)• Biomass (8.39 Euros/GJ)Biomass (8.39 Euros/GJ)

    • Use of virgin wood as biomass fuel.• Annual operating hours

    With t t 7884 h• Without capture 7884 hours per year• With capture 7710 hours per year

    • Constant ETS price of €14 per tonnes of CO2

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Constant Green Certificate price of €50 per MWh.

  • Results Results –– Key Features of the Power PlantsKey Features of the Power PlantsBoiler Steam

    Key Case

    Boiler Technology

    Steam Parameter

    Fuely

    Technology Features

    CO2 Capture DeSOx DeNOx

    1A PC supercritical90% Coal / 10% 

    BiomassNone No FGD SCR

    90% Coal / 10%1B PC supercritical

    90% Coal / 10% Biomass

    None Yes FGD SCR

    2A CFB supercritical90% Coal / 10% 

    Biomass

    Inclusion of special plastic HEX for flue gas heat recovery

    NoLimestone Injection in Furnace

    None

    2B CFB supercritical90% Coal / 10% 

    BiomassNone Yes

    Limestone Injection in 

    Furnace & FGDNone

    3A CFB subcritical 100% Biomass

    Inclusion of special plastic HEX for flue gas 

    No None None

    heat recovery

    3B CFB subcritical 100% Biomass None YesLimestone Injection in Furnace

    None

    4A BFB subcritical 100% Biomass None No None None

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    4B BFB subcritical 100% Biomass None YesLimestone Injection in Furnace

    None

  • Results Results –– Key Performance Data and Capital Cost Key Performance Data and Capital Cost

    Biomass Thermal Input

    Net Power Output

    NetEfficiency (LHV)

    Total Investment 

    CostCapital Cost

    % MW % MM € €/kWe net

    SC PC boiler co‐fired with biomass

    Case 1A (without CO2 capture) 10 518.9 44.8 657.2 1266.5

    Case 1B (with CO2 capture) 10 398.9 34.5 824.3 2066.5

    SC CFB boiler co‐fired with biomass

    Case 2A (without CO2 capture) 10 521.4 45.1 707.3 1356.5

    Case 2B (with CO2 capture) 10 390.5 33.8 918.4 2351.8

    Sub CFB boiler fired with biomassSub CFB boiler fired with biomass

    Case 3A (without CO2 capture) 100 273.0 41.7 370.3 1356.4

    Case 3B (with CO2 capture) 100 168.9 25.8 519.7 3077.2

    Sub BFB boiler fired with biomass

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Case 4A (without CO2 capture) 100 75.8 36.0 185.4 2446.1

    Case 4B (with CO2 capture) 100 48.9 23.2 256.2 5240.1

  • Results Results –– Cost of Electricity (CoCost of Electricity (Co--Firing Cases)Firing Cases)No Incentives from ETS or Green CertificateNo Incentives from ETS or Green Certificate

    100.0

    120.0

    without CO2 capture

    with CO2 capture

    80.0

    €/ M

    Wh)

    40.0

    60.0

    evel

    ised

    CO

    E (€

    20.0

    Le

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    0.0

    500MWe Net Nominal P F Power P lant (Co-firing) 500MWe Net Nominal CFB P ower Plant (Co-firing)

  • Results Results –– Cost of Electricity (Standalone Biomass Cases)Cost of Electricity (Standalone Biomass Cases)No Incentives from ETS or Green CertificateNo Incentives from ETS or Green Certificate

    300.0

    350.0

    without CO2 capture

    with CO2 capture

    200 0

    250.0

    €/ M

    Wh)

    150.0

    200.0

    evel

    ised

    CO

    E (€

    50.0

    100.0Le

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    0.0

    250MWe Net Nominal CFB P ower Plant (Biomass) 75MWe Net Nominal BFB P ower P lant (Biomass)

  • Results Results –– Implication of ETS and Green CertificateImplication of ETS and Green Certificate(For Nominal 500MWe Co(For Nominal 500MWe Co--Fired SCPC Case)Fired SCPC Case)

    80 0

    90.0

    100.0

    without CO2 capture

    with CO2 capture

    60.0

    70.0

    80.0

    (€/

    MWh)

    30 0

    40.0

    50.0

    evel

    ised

    CO

    E (

    10.0

    20.0

    30.0L

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    0.0COE without incentives COE @ ETS = 47.8 €/t CO2 &

    Green Cert. = 0 €/MWhCOE @ ETS = 0 €/t CO2 & Green

    Cert. = 325 €/MWhCOE @ ETS = 47.8 €/t CO2 &

    Green Cert. = 312 €/MWh

  • Results Results –– Implication of ETS and Green CertificateImplication of ETS and Green Certificate(For Nominal 250MWe Biomass Fired CFB Cases)(For Nominal 250MWe Biomass Fired CFB Cases)

    200 0

    225.0

    250.0

    without CO2 capture

    with CO2 capture

    150.0

    175.0

    200.0

    (€/ M

    Wh)

    75.0

    100.0

    125.0

    Leve

    lised

    CO

    E

    0.0

    25.0

    50.0

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    0.0COE without incentives COE @ ETS = 0 €/t CO2 & Green

    Cert. = 101.85 €/MWhCOE @ ETS = 64.7 €/t CO2 &

    Green Cert. = 0 €/MWhCOE @ ETS = 64.7 €/t CO2 &

    Green Cert. = 50 €/MWh

  • Sensitivity to the Biomass Fuel CostSensitivity to the Biomass Fuel CostScenario 01 Scenario 01 –– No Incentives ConsideredNo Incentives Considered

    350

    300

    250

    / MW

    h]

    200

    150CO

    E [E

    uro

    100

    50

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Sensitivity to the Biomass Fuel CostSensitivity to the Biomass Fuel CostScenario 04 Scenario 04 –– Both Green and ETS Certificates ConsideredBoth Green and ETS Certificates Considered

    250

    200

    150

    ro /

    MW

    h]

    100

    CO

    E [E

    ur

    50

    0

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Conclusions Conclusions –– Performance Performance • Performance of the biomass fired or co-fired power plant with

    post-combustion CO2 capture could be affected by:• Flue gas cleaning processes• Flue gas cleaning processes.• Expected increase of the volume of flue gas and lower

    CO2 concentration since biomass has lower energy gydensity.

    • Still no experience in operating ultra-supercritical PC co-fired with biomass.

    • Still need to do the techno-economic evaluation of using more difficult biomass fuel

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    more difficult biomass fuel.

  • Conclusions Conclusions –– Cost of ElectricityCost of Electricityf• The increase in capital cost of a biomass power

    plant with CCS is primarily due to:C t f th CO t d i it• Cost of the CO2 capture and compression unit

    • Cost of the flue gas processing unit.

    Th i bilit f th bi ith CCS ld• The viability of the biomass with CCS could significantly affected by:• Cost of the ETS certificate• Cost of the ETS certificate• Fuel Cost

    • Considering Green certificate alone would not

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Considering Green certificate alone would not make biomass with CCS economically attractive.

  • Recommendations and Remaining IssuesRecommendations and Remaining IssuesI t t R i i I• Important Remaining Issue• It is essential to establish methodology for calculation of

    CO2 avoidance to account for the CO2 emissions thatCO2 avoidance to account for the CO2 emissions that could be considered as “negative” emissions.

    • Recommendationeco e dat o• Next Biomass CCS study should consider the evaluation

    of its application in some niche market where cost of biomass fuel could provide significant advantage.

    • Industries include – biomass CHP/agriculture/pulp and paper...• Provide us opportunity to evaluate the impact of more difficult

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Provide us opportunity to evaluate the impact of more difficult biomass fuel

  • LCA of CCS LCA of CCS -- scopescope

    • Literature survey• 34 references consulted• 14 selected for more detailed analysis

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • LCA of CCS LCA of CCS -- CategoriesCategories• GWP Global Warming PotentialGWP Global Warming Potential,• AP Acidification Potential, • EP Eutrophication Potential, • POCP Photochemical Oxidation Potential,POCP Photochemical Oxidation Potential,• ODP Ozone Depletion Potential,• HTP Human Toxicity Potential,• FAETP Fresh Water Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential,FAETP Fresh Water Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential,• MAETP Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential,• TEP Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Potential,• CED Cumulative Energy Demand,gy ,• ADP Abiotic Depletion Potential,• PM 10 Particulate Matter Equivalent,• LU Land Use, WU Water Use, W Waste,

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    , , ,• AI Aggregated Indicator

  • LCA of CCS LCA of CCS -- CoverageCoverageGWP AP EP POCP ODP HTP FA MA TEP CED/ PM Land

    UseWaterUse

    Waste Aggregated

    Study/Year

    gETP ETP ADP 10

    Doctor/2001 x x x x x x x x x x

    IEA/2006 x x x x x x x x x

    Kh /2006Khoo/2006 x x x x x x x x x x

    Koornneef/2008 x x x x x x x x x x

    Korree/2009 x x x x x x x

    Lombardi/2003 x

    Modahl/2009 x x x x x x

    Muramatsu/2002 x

    NEEDS/2008 x x x x x x x x

    Odeh/2008 x x

    Pehnt/2008 x x x x x x

    Schreiber/2009 x x x x x x x

    S th/2004

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Spath/2004 x x

    Viebahn/2007 x x x x x x x

  • LCA of CCS LCA of CCS –– Key findingsKey findings

    • All categories except GWP tend to increase

    • Reasons• Emissions from mining and transport of extra fuel• Emissions from mining and transport of extra fuel• Emissions associated with solvent

    production/disposalproduction/disposal

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • LCA of CCS LCA of CCS –– graphical comparisongraphical comparisonpost-combustion MEA

    150Koornneef PC

    Odeh Super-PC

    Schreiber 2010 retr

    50

    100

    e im

    pact

    s

    Schreiber 2010 retr.

    Schreiber 2020 retr.

    Schreiber 2020 greenf.

    0

    50

    GWP AP EP POCP Cumulative

    % re

    lativ

    e Viebahn PC

    Spath PC

    Needs PC

    -50

    GWP AP EP POCP Cumulativeenergy

    demandKorre PC

    Muramatsu PC KS-1

    M t PC

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    -100Muramatsu PC

  • LCA of CCS LCA of CCS –– Baseline impactsBaseline impacts

    without CCS

    3

    Koornneef PC

    Koornneef Super-PC

    Odeh PC

    1 5

    2

    2,5

    3

    alen

    ts

    Odeh PC

    Odeh Super-PC

    Schreiber PC 1990

    Schreiber PC 2005

    0,5

    1

    1,5

    equi

    va Schreiber PC 2010Schreiber PC 2020

    Viebahn PC

    Spath PC0GWP [kg CO2-

    equiv/kWh]AP [g SO2-equiv./kWh]

    EP [g PO43-equiv./kWh]

    POCP [gC2H4-

    equiv./kWh]

    Cumulativeenergy demand

    [GJ/kWh]

    Spath PC

    Needs PC 2025

    Korre PC (Bittuminous)

    Muramatsu PC

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • LCA of CCS LCA of CCS -- RecommendationsRecommendations• LCA too expensive for Programme to undertake• LCA is valuable decision making tool, Programme

    should support execution of more studiesshould support execution of more studies• Need to promote more consistency in analysis and

    reporting – support benchmarkingreporting support benchmarking • Identify which categories are important for LCA of CCS• Publish unbiased factual information on trade-off

    between GWP and other impact categories• Consider setting up database of LCA CCS studies

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Study PrioritisationStudy Prioritisation(Paper GHG/09/57 refers)(Paper GHG/09/57 refers)

    • Summary of voting on prioritisation of new studies

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Study Prioritisation Study Prioritisation • Electronic voting used again successfullyg g y• 11 outline proposals were submitted to the ExCo for voting:

    • 5 proposals re-submitted from the previous voting round 6 l 5 f b 1 f th P T• 6 new proposals: 5 from members, 1 from the Programme Team

    • Members were asked to vote for up to 5 studies and indicate their first choice

    • 25 members voted – 60%• Total number of members is 42• Top 6 proposals clear • Presentations will be made on the top 6 proposals

    • 5 average size, 1 below average• Programme team able to take on up to 6 new studies (2 would

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    g p (not start immediately)

  • Proposals Receiving Most Votes Proposals Receiving Most Votes No Title Votes First WeightedNo. Title Votes First

    choicesWeighted

    votes

    36 4

    Technologies for Deep Removal of Amines, Additives and Other 12 9 3036-4 Amines, Additives and Other Degradation Products from Flue Gas Emissions of Post-Comb. Capture

    12 9 30

    36-9 Global Storage Resource Gap Analysis f P li M k 23 3 29for Policy Makers

    36-11Potential Financial Mechanisms for Long Term Liability 17 4 25

    Caprock Systems for CO Storage36-81

    Caprock Systems for CO2 Storage16 4 24

    36-7Feasibility of Monitoring Techniques for Substances Mobilised by CO Storage 15 3 21

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Substances Mobilised by CO2 Storage

    36-3 Impacts of CCS on Emissions of Other Substances 12 4 20

  • Other Proposals Other Proposals No. Title Votes First

    choicesWeighted

    votes

    36-5 Experience Gathering and New Concepts for Rotating Equipment for CO 12 2 16for Rotating Equipment for CO236-2 CCS in Cogeneration and TrigenerationPlants

    7 2 11

    36 1 Use of Renewable Energy in CO2 Capture 8 1 1036-1 Processes 8 1 10

    36-10 CO2 Storage and Geothermal Energy –Competing for Subsurface Resources? 7 1 9

    Design and Management of CO236-6

    Design and Management of CO2 Collection and Storage Grids, and Decarbonised Fuel Distribution

    5 0 5

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Prioritisation of New StudiesPrioritisation of New Studies• Should the Programme proceed with the studies which

    will be presented?D th tli ifi ti d ib th k• Do the outline specifications describe the work required?

    • Which of the proposals not selected at this meetingWhich of the proposals not selected at this meeting should be resubmitted for voting?

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Evaluation and Review of Available Technologies for Deep Removal of Amines, Additives and other Degradation Products , g

    from Flue Gas Emissions of the Power Plant with Post-Combustion Capture

    (Paper GHG/09/58 refers)(Paper GHG/09/58 refers)B k d (Paper GHG/09/58 refers)(Paper GHG/09/58 refers)Background• The expected emissions of amines, additives and their

    degradation products with flue gas stream and waste productdegradation products with flue gas stream and waste product streams is a continued concern and possible show-stopper for the deployment of post-combustion capture using amines.

    • The lack of understanding in the characteristics of the used solvent and their degradation products is an additional concern

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    concern.• Little work has been done in this area!!

  • Technologies for Deep Removal of Amines, Additives and other Degradation Products Post-Combustion Captureg p

    (Paper GHG/09/58 refers)(Paper GHG/09/58 refers)Scope of the study• To identify and quantify the sources of chemical

    emissions in the CO2 post-combustion capture process• To identify the gaps of information particularly in the• To identify the gaps of information particularly in the

    characteristics of any emitted chemical• Te review the available technologies for deep removal of e e e t e a a ab e tec o og es o deep e o a o

    these chemicals• To review any HSE considerations/regulations in dealing

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    with any possible emissions of these chemicals

  • Technologies for Deep Removal of Amines, Additives and other Degradation Products Post-Combustion Capture

    Related meeting/workshop!!

    g p(Paper GHG/09/58 refers)(Paper GHG/09/58 refers)

    • To be held on this topic (due November)• This meeting will help by providing an overview of the

    current related activities and interested partiescurrent related activities and interested parties• Will be a starting point to identify gaps of knowledge and

    areas of interestareas of interest

    Supporting the proposed meeting is requiredSupporting the proposed meeting is required

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Access of information is expected to be a major barrier

  • Technologies for Deep Removal of Amines, Additives and other Degradation Products Post-Combustion Capture

    E t d t

    g p(Paper GHG/09/58 refers)(Paper GHG/09/58 refers)

    Expected outcomes• Overview of the sources of chemical emissions in the

    CO2 post-combustion capture processCO2 post combustion capture process• Revision of available technologies for deep removal of

    chemicals.• Identify gaps and areas for research and development• Recommendation in relation to HSE regulations

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Technologies for Deep Removal of Amines, Additives and other Degradation Products Post-Combustion Capture

    • Committee is asked to:

    g p(Paper GHG/09/58 refers)(Paper GHG/09/58 refers)

    • Committee is asked to:• Approve proceeding with the study• Suggest possible contractorsSuggest possible contractors• Suggest expert reviewers for the study report

    • Resources:• Financial – Average• Management – Average

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Global Storage Resource Gap Analysis for Global Storage Resource Gap Analysis for PolicymakersPolicymakers

    (Paper GHG/09/59 Refers)(Paper GHG/09/59 Refers)• Access to bankable storage is a pre-requisite for

    the development of CCS projects and is often thethe development of CCS projects, and is often the critical path task in project development.

    • The status of data availability and evaluation of e status o data a a ab ty a d e a uat o ostorage potential varies significantly around the world, and is a major potential constraint on rapid widespread CCS deploymentwidespread CCS deployment.

    • The development of regional Storage Atlas and Development Plans in some regions is an

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    p gimportant step forward, and needs to be further developed and extended to other regions

  • Aims of StudyAims of StudyThe proposed st d o ld aim to identif and• The proposed study would aim to identify and prioritise the key storage resource knowledge gaps for each of the world’s main carbongaps for each of the world s main carbon-intensive regions, and to outline the work programs (preferably including time andprograms (preferably including time and money) that would be required to fill those gaps to enable widespread deployment of CCSto enable widespread deployment of CCS

    • Provide a summary of what is known now, what d t b k f id d d l t

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    needs to be known for widespread deployment, and the content and cost of filling the gap.

  • Outline Scope of StudyOutline Scope of Study

    • Desk based literature review• Summarise the status of data availability and y

    storage resource evaluation in Europe, North America, China, India, Southern Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia and Australia

    • Identify the distinctive challenges and keyIdentify the distinctive challenges and key storage resource assessment tasks of each region in the timeframe aligned with IEA

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    g gscenarios for widespread CCS deployment

  • Study OutcomesStudy Outcomes

    • Provide a consistent and balanced overview of the data and evaluation status and CCS deployment requirements of each world region

    • Cost and prioritise the major storage evaluation p j gtasks for each world region

    • The study will be undertaken in collaborationThe study will be undertaken in collaboration with the Global CCS Institute and will constitute the first phase of the Institute’s

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    pGlobal Storage Atlas project

  • Overlap with existing IEA GHG studiesOverlap with existing IEA GHG studies

    • Indian Subcontinent (BGS, Feb 2009)• Depleted Gas Fields (Poyry, 2009)p ( y y, )• IEA GHG ‘What Have We Learnt from Large

    Scale Projects’ study (2009)Scale Projects study (2009)• Storage Capacity Coefficients (EERC, 2009)

    CO2 EOR (ARI 2009)• CO2-EOR (ARI, 2009)

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Global Storage Resource Gap Analysis Global Storage Resource Gap Analysis for Policymakersfor Policymakersfor Policymakersfor Policymakers

    • Committee is asked to:Approve proceeding with the study• Approve proceeding with the study

    • Suggest possible contractors• Suggest expert reviewers for the study report• Suggest expert reviewers for the study report

    • Resources:• Financial – AverageFinancial Average• Management – Average

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • CaprockCaprock Systems for COSystems for CO22 StorageStorage(Paper GHG/09/60 Refers)(Paper GHG/09/60 Refers)( p )( p )

    • Caprocks are vital a component of storage sites• Ensure that buoyant CO2 and other substances

    t i t t d i t l tcannot migrate towards environmental receptors• Caprocks could be single layers or multi-layered

    sequencessequences• Various rock-types could be considered• Increased security with depth versus decreased y p

    injectivity?• Knowledge and experience from petroleum

    industry

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    industry

  • Alternative ScenariosAlternative Scenarios

    The Farnham Dome site in USA, with multiple confining layers

    The Sleipner formation, where the injection is at a shallower depth,

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    p g yabove the saline aquifer formation with only one confining caprock

    layer.

  • Outline Scope of StudyOutline Scope of Study

    • Desk based literature review• Caprock properties• Site selection and characterisation• Single versus multiple layersSingle versus multiple layers• Potential leakage pathways and mechanisms• Predictive (coupled) models• Predictive (coupled) models• Best practice for assessment

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Study OutcomesStudy Outcomes

    • High level overview of caprock systems for CO2geological storage

    • Summary of current knowledge from oil and gas industryg y

    • Identification of uncertainties and knowledge gapsgaps

    • Input to IEA GHG modelling network and best practice guidelines

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    practice guidelines

  • Overlap with existing studiesOverlap with existing studies

    • Aquifer Storage (CO2CRC, Feb 2009)• Storage Capacity Coefficients (EERC, 2009)g p y ( , )• Site Selection and Characterisation (ARC,

    2009)2009)• Injection Strategies (CO2CRC, 2010)

    Brine and pressurisation (out to tender)• Brine and pressurisation (out to tender)• CO2 impurities (out to tender)

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Modelling and Risk networks

  • CaprockCaprock Systems for COSystems for CO22 StorageStorage

    • Committee is asked to:Approve proceeding with the study• Approve proceeding with the study

    • Suggest possible contractors• Suggest expert reviewers for the study report• Suggest expert reviewers for the study report

    • Resources:• Financial – AverageFinancial Average• Management – Average

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Potential Mechanisms for LongPotential Mechanisms for Long--term Liability term Liability (Paper GHG/09/61 refers)(Paper GHG/09/61 refers)(Paper GHG/09/61 refers)(Paper GHG/09/61 refers)

    Background• Unbounded duration for potential liability for stored CO2• Post closure liability with operator, until potential transfer to

    State• Insurance becoming available, but not for long-term liability• Some outline criteria now coming out with requirements for

    financial mechanisms to cover liability (EU US)financial mechanisms to cover liability (EU, US)

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Potential Mechanisms for LongPotential Mechanisms for Long--term Liabilityterm Liability

    Scope• Liability to include mitigation and remediation ofLiability to include mitigation and remediation of

    leakage, environmental impact and effects on others of leakage, and emissions accounting (ETS, CDM)

    • Options for managing long-term liability • Financial mechanisms to support options for managing

    long term liability (including insurance)long-term liability (including insurance)• Different regions of the World

    • A few with outline frameworks – review and assess

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • A few with outline frameworks – review and assess• Many without – review and recommendations

  • Potential Mechanisms for LongPotential Mechanisms for Long--term Liabilityterm Liability

    Expected Outcomes Gl b l d i l t f li bilit f k• Global and regional assessment of liability frameworks

    • Recommendations where frameworks don’t exist (if possible)possible)

    • Review of requirements for liability transfer to State• Review of options for financial mechanisms to cover p

    management of long-term liability (for both operator and State) their requirements, and applicability.

    ?

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Recommendations ?

  • Potential Mechanisms for LongPotential Mechanisms for Long--term term Liability(GHG/09/61)Liability(GHG/09/61)

    • Committee is asked to:A di ith th t d• Approve proceeding with the study

    • Suggest possible contractors• Suggest expert reviewers for the study report• Suggest expert reviewers for the study report

    • Resources:• Financial – Average• Financial – Average• Management – Average

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Feasibility of Monitoring Techniques for Feasibility of Monitoring Techniques for Substances Mobilised by COSubstances Mobilised by CO22 in Geological in Geological

    Formations (Paper GHG/09/62 refers)Formations (Paper GHG/09/62 refers)Background

    F t d t h b it i t h i f CO• Focus to date has been on monitoring techniques for CO2• Recognised that CO2 may mobilise other substances and

    displace saline water eg by pH change mobilising tracedisplace saline water, eg by pH change mobilising trace metals – which could have an environmental impact in event of leakage

    • Some regulatory regimes require assessment of effects of mobilised substances ,and potential monitoring (London Convention OSPAR)

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Convention, OSPAR)• Identified as a gap in knowledge and area for research by

    Joint Network meeting (June 08)

  • Monitoring Techniques for Mobilised Monitoring Techniques for Mobilised SubstancesSubstances

    Scope• Identify mobilisation mechanisms and substances –Identify mobilisation mechanisms and substances

    those mobilised within geological formations, and CO2stream impurities, including trace metals and saline

    twater• Assess scale and potential effects of mobilised

    substances to decide which should be monitoredsubstances to decide which should be monitored• Review and assess possible monitoring techniques – for

    detection of substances and detection of impacts

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    • Direct sampling and remote, onshore and offshore

  • Monitoring Techniques for Mobilised Subs.Monitoring Techniques for Mobilised Subs.Expected Outcomes p• Identification of mobilised substances• Assessment of scale and potential effects of mobilised

    substances and identify those needing monitoring • Review of feasibility of possible monitoring techniques

    for each substance (including sensitivity resolutionfor each substance (including sensitivity, resolution, costs)

    • Identify gaps and areas for research and developmentIdentify gaps and areas for research and development• Possible recommendations for design of monitoring

    programmes and regulation

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Monitoring Techniques for Mobilised Monitoring Techniques for Mobilised SubstancesSubstances

    Links with other studies:• Brine Displacement (35-6)p ( )• Effects if Impurities on Geological Storage (35-7)• Risks to Groundwater (36-8)

    Input to Monitoring Network meetingInput to Monitoring Selection Tool

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Feasibility of Monitoring Techniques for Feasibility of Monitoring Techniques for Substances Mobilised by COSubstances Mobilised by CO22 in Geological in Geological yy gg

    Formations (Paper GHG/09/62 refers)Formations (Paper GHG/09/62 refers)

    C• Committee is asked to:• Approve proceeding with the study

    S t ibl t t• Suggest possible contractors• Suggest expert reviewers for the study report

    • Resources:• Resources:• Financial – Average• Management – Average

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Management Average

  • Impacts of CCS on Emissions of Other Impacts of CCS on Emissions of Other Substances (GHG/09/63)Substances (GHG/09/63)Substances (GHG/09/63)Substances (GHG/09/63)

    Background• CCS affects emissions of substances other than CO• CCS affects emissions of substances other than CO2

    • SOx, NOx, particulates, heavy metals, hydrocarbons etc.

    • Adverse impacts could affect the acceptance of CCS • Impacts on emissions of other substances has been

    summarised briefly in the IPCC SRCCS and elsewheresummarised briefly in the IPCC SRCCS and elsewhere • An up-to-date and impartial review is needed• Review to be based on the current published literature

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    psupplemented by direct contact with capture process developers and researchers

  • Impacts of CCS on Other Emissions Impacts of CCS on Other Emissions Pre-cleaning prior to capture,

    e.g. enhanced FGDIncreased fuel use

    – more emissions of everything

    Direct impacts Indirect impacts

    Substances Substances Move to other power generation processes

    removed in the capture process,

    e.g. SOx in amine scrubbing

    emitted by the capture process,

    e.g. solvent wastes

    g pand fuels

    IGCC PCG l

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    amine scrubbing wastes IGCC vs PCGas vs coal

  • Impacts of CCS on Other Emissions Impacts of CCS on Other Emissions The study will quantify and compare environmentally• The study will quantify and compare environmentally harmful emissions from power generation processes with and without CCS

    P t b ti t• Post combustion capture• Oxy-combustion capture• Pre-combustion capturep• Coal and natural gas fuel

    • Possible techniques for abating any significant increases in emissions will be identified if possiblein emissions will be identified if possible

    • Removal of amines and degradation products from flue gas is a special concern which will be addressed by a separate study (see GHG/09/58)

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    separate study (see GHG/09/58)

  • Impacts of CCS on Emissions of Other Impacts of CCS on Emissions of Other Substances (GHG/09/63)Substances (GHG/09/63)Substances (GHG/09/63) Substances (GHG/09/63)

    • Committee is asked to:• Approve proceeding with the study• Suggest possible contractors

    S t t i f th t d t• Suggest expert reviewers for the study report• Resources:

    • Financial Below average• Financial – Below average• Management – Average

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Study Prioritisation and to be ReconsideredStudy Prioritisation and to be Reconsidered

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Study ProposalsStudy ProposalsNo Title Votes First WeightedNo. Title Votes First

    choicesWeighted

    votes

    36 4

    Technologies for Deep Removal of Amines, Additives and Other 12 9 3036-4 Amines, Additives and Other Degradation Products from Flue Gas Emissions of Post-Comb. Capture

    12 9 30

    36-9 Global Storage Resource Gap Analysis f P li M k 23 3 29for Policy Makers

    36-11Potential Financial Mechanisms for Long Term Liability 17 4 25

    Caprock Systems for CO Storage36-81

    Caprock Systems for CO2 Storage16 4 24

    36-7Feasibility of Monitoring Techniques for Substances Mobilised by CO Storage 15 3 21

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Substances Mobilised by CO2 Storage

    36-3 Impacts of CCS on Emissions of Other Substances 12 4 20

  • Other Proposals to be reconsidered Other Proposals to be reconsidered No. Title Votes First

    choicesWeighted

    votes

    36-5 Experience Gathering and New Concepts for Rotating Equipment for CO 12 2 16for Rotating Equipment for CO236-2 CCS in Cogeneration and TrigenerationPlants

    7 2 11

    36 1 Use of Renewable Energy in CO2 Capture 8 1 1036-1 Processes 8 1 10

    36-10 CO2 Storage and Geothermal Energy –Competing for Subsurface Resources? 7 1 9

    Design and Management of CO236-6

    Design and Management of CO2 Collection and Storage Grids, and Decarbonised Fuel Distribution

    5 0 5

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • SummarySummary• The total energy system – fields of study• Areas of interest to IEAGHG• The smart grid in the total energy system• Areas of interest to IEAGHG study scope• Areas of interest to IEAGHG – study scope

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • Fields within the total energy systemFields within the total energy system• Broadly divides into

    • Specific energy technologies• System technologies – how the specific technologies

    are brought together and interact.The first are relatively easy to formulate and study• The first are relatively easy to formulate and study

    • The latter are relatively: - more complex, difficult to predict, scenario dependent, behaviour dependentpredict, scenario dependent, behaviour dependent

    • BUT have potential to yield enormous benefitsIllustrated in following diagrams

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

  • The total energy system

    IEAGHG study areasEnergy sourcesInfrastructure development The total energy system

    CCS

    Transport technologiesInfrastructure development

    Energy use optimisationSmart systems

    Renewableenergy – wind, wave

    solar, biomassEnergy mixEnergy mix

    Distributed CO2 collection

    H d CO2 pipelineCCS flexibility

    Distributedgeneration

    Energy mix

    Nuclear

    Energy mix

    Smart gridsIntegration of post comb

    CCS into

    Alternativeenergy

    carriers

    Smartmeters

    Hydrogen p pinfrastructure

    Integration of industrial

    Efficiencyimprovement

    CCS into industrial complexes

    Infrastructure development

    meters

    Integration of industrial

    Infrastructure development

    of industrialcomplexesPeak load

    smoothingshifting

    Reduction of

    Energy storage

    Supergrids

    Superconductors

    Completed

    Ongoing

    of industrialcomplexes

    Supergrids

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Reduction of unnecessary loads HVDCCapacity

    development

    Pending

    Future?

    Capacity development

  • The total energy systemThe total energy system

    Renewableenergy – wind, wave

    solar, biomass CCS

    Energy mix

    CCS flexibility

    Distributedgeneration

    Distributed CO2 collection

    H d

    Nuclear

    CO2 pipeline

    Energy mix

    Smart gridsIntegration of post comb

    CCS into

    Alternativeenergy

    carriers

    Smartmeters

    Hydrogen p pinfrastructure

    Integration of industrial

    Efficiencyimprovement

    CCS into industrial complexes

    Infrastructure development

    meters

    of industrialcomplexesPeak load

    smoothingshifting

    Reduction of

    Energy storage

    Supergrids

    Superconductors

    Completed

    Ongoing

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Reduction ofunnecessary loads HVDCCapacity

    development

    Pending

    Future?

  • Smart grid technology - Benefit hierarchy

    Cost reduction

    Performance improvement

    Emission reduction

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    A mere pawn in the system?

  • S t id

    Prime benefits

    Smart grids

    Enabling distributedgeneration

    Utilising variable Lower emissions

    Better performance

    Customerinteraction

    grenewable

    energySmart

    metering

    Better performance

    Lower cost

    Maintenance cost reduction

    Grid reliabilityimprovementEfficiency

    improvement

    Equipment monitoring

    Grid stability improvement

    Peak loadsmoothing

    shifting

    Super grids

    Emission

    Reduction ofunnecessary loads

    Optimisation ofenergy storage

    Emission optimisation

    www.ieagreen.org.uk

    Voltage control

  • Smart gridsE i i d ti i iti d

    Prime benefits

    Emission reduction prioritised

    Enabling distributedgeneration

    Utilising variable renewable

    energy

    Emission optimisationLower emissions

    Better performance

    Efficiencyimprovement

    SmartmeteringSuper grids

    Better performance

    Lower cost

    Reduction ofunnecessary loads

    Peak loadsmoothing

    shiftingOptimisation ofenergy storage

    Voltage control

    Grid reliabilityimprovement

    Grid stability improvement

    Customerinteraction

    Propose a study concentrating on smart grid effects and

    Maintenance

    improvement

    Equipment monitoring

    Propose a study concentrating on smart grid effects and technologies