36th exco meeting exco/36exco papers.pdf · 36th exco meeting 8th – 9th october 2009 zurich,...

36th EXCO MEETING 8th – 9th October 2009

Zurich, Switzerland

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

Election of Chairmen…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Minutes of 35th meeting…………………………………………………………………………………………………. Corrections to minutes……………………………………………………………………………………………………

7 31

Matters arising from the 35th meeting ‐ list of actions and status ………………………………… 33 Operating Agent’s Report………………………………………………………………………………………………. 35 Progress Report……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 Update on GCCSI interactions/ Foundation membership ................................................. 51 Finances Audited accounts for 2008/9 ………………………………………………………………………………..

Financial/budgetary issues…………………………………………………………………………………..

53 55

Update on Ad Hoc Strategy Group Activities Guidelines for membership……………….………………………………………………………………….. Outline Strategy for Phase 6………………………………………………………………………………….

57 61

Membership Issues/New Members……………………………………………………………………………… 67 CCS Webinars …………………….………………………………………………………………………………………….. 69 Update on rebranding exercise/new logo…………………………………………………………………….. 81 Completed Activities

Long Term Integrity ‐ Well Abandonment …………………………………………………………….. 83 Storage Capacity Coefficients ……..………………………………………………………………………… 95 CO2 storage in depleted oilfields …………………………………………………………………………… 107 CCS Site Characterisation Criteria ……..………………………………………………………………….. 117 Techno‐economic evaluation of biomass fired or co‐fired power plant with post‐combustion co2 capture ………………………………………………………………………………………….

123

Life Cycle Assessments of CCS……………………………………………………………………………….. 141 Study Prioritisation………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 147 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…………………………………………………………..

149 Global storage resource gap analysis for policymakers ………………..………………………. 151 Caprock systems for co2 storage……………………………………...................................... 153 Potential financial mechanisms for long‐term co2 liability ……………………………………… 155 Feasibility of monitoring techniques for substances mobilised by CO2 storage in geological formations BC ………………………………………………………………………………………

157

Impacts of CCS on Emissions of Other Substances ………………………………………………… 159 Studies to be reconsidered for future voting rounds/Members Ideas for Future Studies.. 161 Discussion paper on smart grids ……………………………………….……………………………………………. 163 Research Network Feedback…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Risk Assessment/Monitoring and Well bore integrity New solid looping network OCC‐1

171

Feedback on Practical R&D Activities: CO2SINK ……………….…………………………………………… 173

Feedback on Summer School activities 175 Update on discussions prior to Copenhagen ………………………………………………………. 177 Feedback from interactions with other groups

GCCSI/CSLF Technical Group/IEA …………………………………………………………………………… 179

Members Activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 181 Date of Next Meeting……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 183 Any Other Business………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 185

GHG/09/35

IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME 36th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

Zurich, Switzerland, October 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/09/35 GHG/09/36

3) Election of Chairmen GHG/09/37 3) Minutes of 35th meeting

Corrections to minutes GHG/09/38 GHG/09/39

4) Matters arising from the 35th meeting - list of actions and status GHG/09/40 5) Operating Agent’s Report GHG/09/41 6) Progress Report GHG/09/42 7) Update on GCCSI interactions/ Foundation membership GHG/09/43 8) Audited accounts for 2008/9

Financial/budgetary issues GHG/09/44 GHG/09/45

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

GHG/09/46 GHG/09/47

10) Membership Issues/New Members GHG/09/48 11) CCS Webinars GHG/09/49 12) Update on rebranding exercise/new logo GHG/09/50 13) Completed Activities No Paper 13.1) Long Term Integrity - Well Abandonment GHG/09/51 13.2) Storage Capacity Coefficients GHG/09/52 13.3) CO2 storage in depleted oilfields GHG/09/53 13.4) CCS Site Characterisation Criteria GHG/09/54 13.5) Techno-economic evaluation of biomass fired or co-fired power plant

with post-combustion co2 capture GHG/09/55

13.6) Life Cycle Assessments of CCS GHG/09/56

1

GHG/09/35

ITEM SECOND DAY (08.30) Paper

14) Study Prioritisation GHG/09/57

14.1) 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

GHG/09/58

14.2) Global storage resource gap analysis for policymakers GHG/09/59

14.3) Caprock systems for co2 storage

GHG/09/60

14.4) Potential financial mechanisms for long-term co2 liability GHG/09/61

14.5) Feasibility of monitoring techniques for substances mobilised by CO2 storage in geological formations BC

GHG/09/62

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

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

No Paper

16) Discussion paper on smart grids GHG/09/64

17) Research Network Feedback Risk Assessment/Monitoring and Well bore integrity New solid looping network OCC-1

No paper No paper No paper

18) Feedback on Practical R&D Activities: CO2SINK No paper

19) Feedback on Summer School activities No paper 20) Update on discussions prior to Copenhagen No paper 21) Feedback from interactions with other groups

GCCSI/CSLF Technical Group/IEA No paper

22) Members Activities No Papers 23) DONM GHG/09/65 24) AOB 25) Close of Meeting

2

GHG/09/36


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/09/37


ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

By the rules of the Implementing Agreement the Officers of the Executive Committee are subject to election on a 2-year cycle. The Chair and Vice-chair must represent Contracting Parties. Sponsors are not eligible for Office, but by previous practice of the ExCo, are entitled to vote in the election. The position of Chairman is due for election at this meeting. (The position of Vice-chairman will fall due for election at the 38th ExCo in autumn 2010.) Dr Kelly Thambimuthu has agreed to stand for re-election. No other nominations have been received. Actions A Proposer and a Seconder for Dr Thambimuthu’s nomination are required. Members are requested to unanimously approve the election of Dr Kelly Thambimuthu as Chairman of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D programme for a further 2 years.

5

GHG/09/37

IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME MINUTES OF THE 35th EXCO MEETING

Gold Coast, Australia, 21st – 22nd April 2009 PRESENT

Dr Kelly Thambimuthu (Chairman) Centre for Low Emission Technology Australia Dr John Carras CSIRO Energy Technology Australia Mr Theodor Zillner Ministry of Transport, Innovation &

Technology Austria

Mr Bill Reynen Natural Resources Canada Canada Mr Doug Cambell Nova Scotia Power Inc Canada Dr Malcolm Wilson University of Regina Canada Dr Jochen Seier Projektträger Jülich Germany Dr Makoto Akai AIST Japan Dr Kemeichiro Nagawa RITE Japan Mr Trevor Matheson CRL Energy Ltd New Zealand Mr Trygve Riis The Research Council of Norway Norway Dr Fuad Siala OPEC Dr Anthony Surridge SANERI South Africa Dr Hee-Moon Eum KEPRI South Korea 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 NetherlandsMr Peter Versteegh SenterNovem The NetherlandsMiss Ruth Hampton BERR UK Mr Philip Sharman ALSTOM Mr Bill Koppe CIAB Mr Richard Rhudy EPRI Mr John Wilkinson ExxonMobil Mr Fumihiro Ito JGC Mr Tsukasa Kumagai JGC Dr Johannes Heithoff RWE Mr Gabriel Marquette Schlumberger Dr Tom Mikus Shell Dr Helle Brit Mostad StatoilHydro IEA GHG Mr John Gale IEA GHG Mr Neil Wildgust IEA GHG Mr Tim Dixon IEA GHG Dr Stanley Santos IEA GHG Dr John Topper IEA EPL Mr Keith Burnard IEA

7

GHG/09/37

Observers

Mr Clement Yoong Dept. of Resources, Energy and Tourism Australia Mr Jim Craigen Australian Coal Research Ltd. Australia Mr John Karas Dept. of Resources, Energy & Tourism Australia Mr John Kaldi CO2CRC Australia Mr Nick Otter Global Carbon Capture & Storage Institute Australia Mr Bob Durie IEA GHG Australian Consortium Australia Dr Anthony Tarr Zerogen Australia Dr François Kalaydjian IFP France Mr Eemeli Tsupari VTT Finland Mr Chris Baker Coal Association NZ New Zealand Prof Krzysztof Warmuzinski Polish Academy of Sciences Poland Ms Liesl Halley Sasol South Africa Mr Anders Johansson Swedish Energy Agency Sweden Mr Lewis Jeffery BP Dr Fiona Wild BP Mr Jack Parkes EPRI Ms Priscilla Yip EPRI Martin Burke Global Carbon Capture & Storage Institute Australia Apologies Mr Eric Bjőrklund Danish Energy Agency Denmark Mr Michael Madsen Vattenfall Denmark Dr Ilkka Savolainen VTT Finland Dr Jürgen-Friedrich Hake FZJ Germany Dr Rob Whitney CRL Energy Ltd New Zealand Dr Jay Braitsch US Department of Energy USA Mr David Ord BG Group UK Mr Gardiner Hill BP UK Mr Arthur Lee Chevron USA Mr Ales Laciok CEZ Mr Luca Zuccolo ENI Mr Martin Fasola Repsol YPF Mr Olav Karstad StatoilHydro Norway Dr Peter Petrov European Commission Mr Harald Rikheim Statkraft Kevin McCauley B&W Tim Hill EoN

8

GHG/09/37

1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS On behalf of the Executive Committee (ExCo) and the Australian Consortium, Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) welcomed Members, Sponsors and Observers and those attending the ExCo for the first time. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda and motion for procedure at the meeting (Paper GHG/09/01 and GHG/09/02) were adopted. An additional item to the agenda was added: following Item 9, Nick Otter will present on the status of the GCCSI and the General Manager will give an update on the in-principle agreement for a work program with the GCCSI for consideration and voting by members. 3. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS (34th) MEETING Papers GHG/09/03 and GHG/09/04 refer. John Gale stated that a small number of comments were received and the minutes presented in the member’s papers had been amended to reflect these comments. Tony Surridge (South Africa) commented that the action to arrange a meeting on Sustainable development and CCS was not recorded in the minutes. John Gale responded that it was noted on page 21 of the minutes of the 34th ExCo and was also listed as Item 30 in the list of actions. Members formally approved the minutes of the 34th meeting. 4. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE 34th MEETING Document GHG/09/05 refers. 5. OPERATING AGENT REPORT (No paper). John Topper reported on issues on staffing. Brendan Beck has handed in his resignation and was joining the IEA in Paris. The IEA GHG was currently recruiting someone to work on capture but that progress on his arrival to the UK was slow due to the new stringent UK immigration process. Andrea Lacey has returned from maternity leave and is working from home in accordance with UK Government rules on flexible working following maternity leave. With regard to the finances, John Topper advised that there are no problems with the finances. The most significant issue has been the worldwide recession, members funds deposited gather interest and interest rates are low at the moment. The General Manager will discuss this in his budget review for 2009. John Topper provided an update on the VAT situation, following up on the discussion at the last ExCo. Following a review by a Tax Inspector, IEA GHG had been advised that it should be deregistered for VAT. This would have an adverse financial impact on IEA GHG of about £50k per year in lost VAT recovery. IEA EPL has hired, using an insurance provision, a tax expert to advise them. As a result of their advice, a letter outlining a strong counter case has been presented to UK HM Customs & Excise. John Topper indicated that there is a precedent, in that the IEA CCC is VAT exempt as a result of a ruling made in the 1990’s. A response from HM Customs & Excise is awaited, but that response is not expected to arrive quickly. Members will be advised as and when there are any new developments.

Action 1: Operating Agent/General Manager Bill Reynen advised that Canada would be happy to support the case in any way they can. John Topper thanked members for their support and if it was needed IEA GHG would call on members to assist. 6. PROGRESS REPORT Document GHG/09/06 refers. John Gale provided an overview of activities in the last 6 months following the previous ExCo.

9

GHG/09/37

Staffing John Gale reported that in addition to the Operating Agents report; John Davison had now returned to work with IEA GHG on a part time basis; a graduate secondee (fully funded) had been with IEA GHG for 3 months and was making a useful contribution. Monica Lupion from CUIDEN (Spain) will also join IEA GHG for a 3 month secondment. John Gale invited members to suggest ideas for future secondees.

Action 2: Members Membership issues, John Gale reported that the formalities of membership for CIAB and JGC were now complete. ENEL had also been invited to join by members at the last ExCo (34th, Washington, USA) but their membership had been held up by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in IEA who were insisting that ENEL should join as a Contracting Party and not as a sponsor because in the OLC’s eyes ENEL were an Italian state owned company. A letter had been sent by the OLC to John Topper as Operating agent for both IEA CCC and IEA GHG and John Gale at IEA GHG setting out the OLC’s position regarding stated owned industries (See Annex 1). John Topper commented that both IEA GHG and IEA CCC had several state owned companies that had been accepted by the CERT as sponsors to these agreements. He also commented that the letter sent by the OLC contained some inconsistencies, omissions and errors of fact. He stated that it was important to obtain clarification on what seemed to be a shift in policy by the OLC. John Topper and John Gale with agreement from the IEA CCC and IEA GHG ExCo Chairs will send a letter responding to the OLC in time for the IEA CCC’s ExCo meeting on 17 May. Peter Cuntz the chair of the CERT will also be present at the IEA CCC ExCo and a meeting will be held with him to discuss the matter further and seek his opinion. John Gale and John Topper will continue to deal with the situation in consultation with the two Chairmen. Note that subsequently at the IEA CCC ExCo it was agreed with the CERT Chair that a paper would be presented to CERT on these issues in their November meeting. The paper would cover both IEA GHG and IEA CCC points and issues and will be prepared by John Topper and cleared by both sets of ExCo members before sending to the IEA for dissemination to CERT members and within the Secretariat. John Topper would be in attendance at the CERT meeting to present the views of the two IA’s.

Action 3: Operating Agent/General Manager Brazilian membership was still awaited but was progressing very slowly. With regard to Chinese membership, John Gale is working through the IEA NEET liaison office in China and with Keith Burnard at IEA to try and progress Chinese membership. John Gale also indicated that the IEA has indicated that there might be interest from VTI in Russia in joining the Programme. John Topper commented that VTI would be a perfect representative for Russia in the IEA GHG. However he fell that were unlikely to have the financial capability to join as the Contracting Party for Russia. He also commented that again there would be the need to determine whether they could join as a sponsor or as a contracting party as they are state owned. John Gale indicated that Bellona, an NGO, has enquired about membership, and he sought the members’ views. Bill Reynen (Canada) supported Bellona becoming a member as did Phillip Sharman (Alstom) and Johannes Heithoff (RWE). Ruth Hampton (UK) felt we should engage with NGO’s and suggested that probably the best way to engage with them was to invite them to the technical forums we organise alongside the ExCos.

10

GHG/09/37

Progress on technical programme delivery (a) Technical studies John Gale reported on study progress, 6 studies had been reported since that last ExCo; a further 6 were in the process of being reported. John commented that there had been a continual increase in the average annual cost of the technical studies. Last year the average study cost was £59,000. Tony Surridge (South Africa) asked why there was an increase in the cost of studies. John Gale advised that the increase is a result of both increased complexity and inflation. (b) Facilitating implementation John Gale reported on the external meetings/groups like CSLF that IEA GHG is attending/participating in. Regarding the summer schools an issue had been raised about reporting. John Gale commented that we did not write formal reports from the meetings but details of the presentations etc., from each meeting could be found on the web site. He also commented that paper GHG/09/31 refers to IEA GHG’s plans for expansion of the Summer School web site and advised members that information on each summer school is available on the web site. Tony Surridge (South Africa) asked whether we attempt to get feedback from the students. John Gale said that after each school the students get a questionnaire and generally the feedback is extremely positive. The feedback is used to help refine the next student programme. (c) Facilitating international co-operation. John Gale reported that one IRN meeting had been held since the last ExCo meeting and a workshop on modelling had also been organised. Fuad Siala (OPEC) asked whether the International Research Network (IRN) meetings are generally open for participation. John Gale advised that there were no restrictions; they are open to non-members as the focus is on getting the right experts to the meetings. John Topper advised that research networks were set up for technical experts to get together and co-operate in an appropriate environment. They have been very successful but some of the membership is changing and a lot of non-experts are interested in attending. Francois Kalaydjian (IFP-France) suggested that if attendance was becoming a problem then we may need to go through a selection process and call for and review applications like the SPE. John Topper advised this would be too onerous an obligation across all of the annual network meetings. Phil Sharman (Alstom) commented that CO2 purity is now a big topic in the oxyfuel network but it is broader than that and asked if there had been any discussion on creating a network for this. John Gale advised that it was discussed at the Ad Hoc Group for Strategy meeting, the results of this will be presented later (See paper GHG/09/11). John Kaldi (CO2CRC, Australia) suggested that network meetings could be extended from a 2 day meeting to a 3 day meeting with the third day being an open day for media, students etc. John Gale agreed this was worth considering. John Karas (DRET, Australia) commented that the Oxyfuel network is a major success but is growing out of all proportion. In terms of the Asia Pacific Partnership programme a smaller more focussed network which links in with the Oxyfuel network has been established. On the issue of international collaborations John Gale said that IEA GHG was now involved with two organisations which were both complimentary to the IRN activities, namely: CO2GeoNet and IPAC. Bill Reynen (Canada) commented that there are many centres of excellence now being started up around the world and the Programme needs to be careful as to how many of these we get involved with. John Gale said his concerns were justified and in each case where collaboration was being considered this would be brought to the ExCo for members’ consideration.

11

GHG/09/37

(d) Dissemination activities The General Manager summarised the dissemination activities completed since the last meeting. He commented that attending conferences was important but the number of meetings and demands on IEA GHG were increasing. John Wilkinson (ExxonMobil) asked if IEA GHG could outsource some of its activities to free up staff time. John Gale commented that there was little that could be done to change the effort distribution, without some radical way of restructuring the work programme was to be considered such as outsourcing all the IRN network operations. However, John also felt that the members gained a lot of useful input to the research programme from the networks as a result of the programme team members being directly involved in the network organisation and operation. John Topper indicated that he felt a lot of administrative effort was put into the preparation of the ExCo meetings by the Programme team. In response to a question by Erik Lysen (The Netherlands) he indicated that at least half a man year of effort goes into the ExCo preparations each year. A lot of that effort goes into the preparation of the members folders and at the last meeting members also requested the folder of presentations before the ExCo as well. John Gale said he would prefer to put the effort into just one folder, a composite folder of papers and presentations. He suggested that he produce such a composite brochure from this meeting for members to consider which was agreed.

Action4: General Manager Fuad Siala (OPEC) commented that dissemination of activities is important but it might be possible for the ExCo members to consider doing some of the representation of IEA GHG and help with sharing the load. John Gale responded that this was an idea that warranted consideration. 7. ANNUAL REVIEW 2008 Document GHG/09/07 refers. John Gale presented the Annual Review 2008 that has been sent around to members prior to the ExCo. He said there was a general view that the IEA GHG image was looking tired and so he had changed the look and style of the review considerably from previous years. Feedback from members had been very complimentary. If members had any further comments they were asked to get back to John Gale by end of April 2009.

Action 5: Members 8. FINANCES Papers GHG/09/08 and GHG/09/09 refer. John Gale presented the projected budget out turn for the membership year 2008 and the proposed budget for the membership year 2009. Bill Reynen (Canada) commented on the way John Gale showed the % of the budget on the presentation was misleading and commented that when written as “30% marginally lower” needed to be put into the context that it reflects 30% of total budget. John Gale agreed and clarified that it meant 30% of the total budget. Peter Versteegh commented that the new budget should show a projected balance and /or be presented as a profit and loss statement. John Topper commented that the ExCo members are supplied a simple income/outgoings balance sheet. Audited accounts are done at the end of each UK tax year and are supplied to members in the autumn ExCo. Philip Sharman (Alstom) commented that paper GHG/09/09 showing 2008/09 is an error and should reflect 2009/10. John Gale agreed and reminded members that had been sent an updated paper for inclusion in their folder 3 weeks before the ExCo meeting. Tony Surridge commented that it is hard to put the figures provided into context. It would be useful to know how much is available to know if we are over or under committing ourselves so that members can have some comfort in knowing we are a viable organisation. John Gale agreed and stated that members have £1.4 million on deposit. In future this information will be presented to members. John Topper commented that we have a positive cash flow and it is a conservative operating system. In cash terms, IEA GHG is well off, especially at the beginning of the financial year.

12

GHG/09/37

Action 6: General Manager

The proposed budget for 2009/10 was unanimously approved by the members. GHGT-9 Surplus John Gale reported that there is a $400k surplus from GHGT-9 owed to IEA GHG. He proposed a number of ways in which this surplus could be used. These options included: strengthening IEA GHG’s capability to support future conferences, supporting developing country student participation at future GHGT conferences and updating of IEA GHG’s databases. Bill Reynen (Canada) commented that this is not the first surplus from a GHGT conference and that future surpluses should be included in the strategic planning. He would like to see the surplus directed toward the Summer School program or expanding the study programme. John Gale advised that this is the first time a surplus has come back directly to the IEA GHG and he would prefer to treat this as a one off situation because we cannot guarantee future GHGT conferences will generate such large surpluses, especially if the current economic crisis continues. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) agreed with this approach. After extensive discussion, John Karras (DRET, Australia) proposed that half of the surplus funds from the GHGT-9 be used to support the institutional development of the IEA GHG and the other half for the development of the GHGT conferences/summer schools. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) also proposed that the GHGT-9 surplus money be used to support a 20th anniversary booklet that reviews the non-technical aspects and the contribution of many people to the development of CCS. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) moved that members give the General Manager the discretion to use the GHGT-9 surplus money to support the institutional development of the programme and the conference series and the huge job they do to enhance our needs into the future. Members agreed unanimously to allow the General Manager to utilise the funds at his discretion. Financial/budgetary issues. Document GHG 09/10 refers. At the last ExCo meeting members agreed to move to one budgetary cycle based on the UK financial year. The General Manager was asked to come back to the ExCo with a plan to harmonise the subscription year (November to December) with the UK financial year (March to April). John Gale proposed to members that the easiest approach was to extend the current phase until March 2012 and to consider adding an extra one off payment to their membership subscription for 2010/2011 to bring the subscription fees in line with the UK financial year. Peter Versteegh (Netherlands) asked the General Manager to confirm that IEA GHG was proposing that the current Phase 5 program be extended by 4 months. John Gale confirmed this was the case and said he that he checked with the IEA OLC and had been advised that as long as there was member agreement then Phase 5 could be extended as suggested. Members agreed unanimously to extend Phase 5 by 4 months until March 2012. Bill Reynen (Canada) commented that he would rather have one invoice covering the 12 months plus the extra 4 months. There are more problems in paying a one-off invoice for a short period of 4 months. Erik Lysen (Netherlands) agreed with this approach. John Topper agreed that it would be easiest for the IEA GHG to supply just one invoice for a 16 month period to members. Members unanimously agreed to be invoiced for a one off period of 16 months. Any members that feel they will have problems should contact the General Manager.

Action 7: Members

13

GHG/09/37

9. AD HOC GROUP ON STRATEGY Papers GHG/09/11, GHG/09/12, GHG/09/13 refer. Membership Guidelines: John Gale described, the current balance between Contracting parties and Sponsors, and outlined the proposed membership guidelines for new Contracting Party and Sponsor members that had been drafted by the Ad Hoc strategy group. Following extensive discussion by the members it was agreed that the General Manager would take due note of the comments made by members, modify the document accordingly and recirculate it for members comments before the next ExCo meeting.

Action 8: General Manager Outline Strategy for Phase 6 Document GHG09/13 refers. John Gale presented the draft strategy outline developed by the Ad Hoc strategy group. After extensive discussion, it was agreed that the General Manager would circulate the document so that members could provide written input to the draft strategy before the next ExCo meeting.

Action 9: General Manager In terms of the IRNs, consideration should be given to a new Research Network on Social Science around Public Communication on CCS. Others network activities that could be considered include cross cutting issues such as corrosion and impurities. Jochen Seier noted that in Germany a large collaboration project has been agreed on corrosion and it is working really well. It would be good to have an international exchange platform. GCCSI (No paper). Nick Otter briefed the meeting on the GCCSI (slides available on members web site for members reference), Malcolm Wilson (Canada) asked if the GCCSI had worked out how it will interact with groups like the IEA, CSLF etc. Nick Otter said that the GCCSI is in the process of discussions with different parts of the IEA and other organisations, also that they are currently in internal discussion on how they will engage with and support work of such organisations. He emphasised that GCCSI will be focused on taking projects forward and getting them demonstration ready. Bill Reynen (Canada) commented that there is a real international opportunity to help avoid duplication in the deployment of CCS technology. John Topper asked whether the GCCSI will assist the Clinton Foundation by helping to finance their 3 projects. Nick Otter answered that it will be at two levels; GCCSI will provide finance for resourcing their projects and provide support for connection to other projects and organisations. Francois Kalaydjian (IFP – France) asked if GCCSI will link with the EU ZEP and other platforms in Europe. Nick Otter confirmed that it was GCCSI’s intention to work with the EU ZEP. IEA GHG Interactions with the GCCSI (No paper slides available). Subject to members agreement John Topper and John Gale will enter into negotiations on an agreement with the GCCSI. The IEA GHG will become a research provider to GCCSI. As part of this agreement IEA GHG will also become a founder member of GCCSI which in turn will become a sponsor of IEA GHG after they become a properly incorporated not-for-profit company limited by guarantee – expected to be after 1 July 2009. The cost of joining the GCCSI is zero. It is proposed that GCCSI would become a member of IEA GHG for the next 3 years until the end of Phase 5. GCCSI will contribute £1.2M over three years to support a number of specific tasks. These tasks include:

14

GHG/09/37

Participating in the development of the Global Atlas, by providing datasets (Phases 1&2), the R, D&D Database and Emissions Database, which are to be updated and redesigned to be incorporated into the Atlas (Phase 3).

Funding an ‘Impurities’ study, GCCSI will support Phase 1b of the current work of the ‘what we have learnt’ study and the

repeat of phases 1a and 1b in two years. Education and Communication. GCCSI will: sponsor three Summer Schools, support the

developing country student mentoring programme at GHGT-10, and support the establishment of the IEA GHG Research Network on Public Communications and their work to develop key messages for key stakeholders from existing IEA GHG material, which will be a building block for later GCCSI work.

The GCCSI will fund some resources (two technical staff and one administrative) and provide direct financial support to studies, with a ring-fenced budget, and with results from the work undertaken reported to IEA GHG members. The benefits to the IEA GHG are in expanding the work programme at no cost to members and this arrangement provides an avenue to co-operate with GCCSI. The disadvantages will be an increased administration work load including more complicated finances and some disruption to staff as offices are moved around. John Gale added that the extra administrative support person would help offset administration issues and he would do his best to minimise any disruption in the office. In general members were very supportive of this proposal. Points of clarification requested by a number of members included the following:

Will GCCSI sit on the ExCo of the IEA GHG at their meetings? John Gale stated that GCCSI would have a seat at the ExCo like any other member. He added that both he and the Chairman had been invited to attend the GCCSI launch meeting held just before this ExCo.

Will GCCSI act as any other sponsor and have the same voting rights? John Gale confirmed that this was the case.

Will all GCCSI members have access to our studies and is this a problem? John Gale stated that this would be the case and was the situation was that same as for other members like, the EC, OPEC and CIAB. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) commented that the Programmes reports are widely available in any case.

How many studies will GCCSI fund and will members get access to these? John Gale said that so far GCCSI has only indicated it will fund the impurities study proposed in this voting round, but that it might identify others it wants to support in the future. GCCSI will have the opportunity to suggest study ideas as do all members and members will get full access to the GCCSI funded studies.

With regard to membership of GCCSI Nick Otter said that foundation membership is open until 1st July after which it will no longer be a government owned initiative. Thereafter, it will be a non-profit making company, incorporated under Australian law. They would like to see a balance of organisations and countries involved. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) said IEA GHG as proposed would be a foundation member until July 1st 2009 then we will have to elect to become a signed up member with a limited liability of no more than AUD $10 as is intended to be proposed in the articles of incorporation of the GCCSI. Kelly Thambimthu (Chair) proposed the following actions for members to vote upon. (a) Members agree in principle to the proposed co-operation agreement with GCCSI. (b) Members agree to invite GCCSI to be a sponsor of IEA GHG and for the General Manager to expedite the formal procedures for GCCSI membership (once it becomes a public company) and to complete negotiations on the terms and conditions of membership on behalf of the Executive Committee.


15

GHG/09/37

(c) Members agree for IEA GHG to join GCCSI as a foundation member.

Action 11: General Manager (d) Members to agree that the General Manager and the Operating Agent (John Topper) can proceed to negotiate a formal contract and implement the partnership with GCCSI.

Action 12: General Manager All actions were unanimously approved by the members. 10. COMPLETED ACTIVITES What have we learnt from demonstration projects – current status? Paper GHG/09/14 refers. Tim Dixon presented the results of this study by the IEA GHG team. A number of points of clarification were raised by members:

Were impurities reported as part of the questionnaire? Tim Dixon clarified that they were not Were the responses from the projects that have the most experience or are they from the less

experienced projects as well? Tim Dixon confirmed that there was generally a better response from the longer running projects.

Is it possible, with support of the GCCSI, to start looking at broadening the definition to smaller scale demos? Tim Dixon confirmed that it was

What does the figure on net storage represent? Tim Dixon clarified that the net storage term allows for CO2 recycling in CO2-EOR. Dehydration was not included in the questionnaire. Energy for capture and injection was also not taken into account

Is there any more information on hydrate problems? It was agreed that IEA GHG would respond to the member concerned on this point.

Action 13: General Manager Trygve Riis (Norway) commented that a network will be setup in Europe that is similar to what IEA GHG will be doing in phase 2. Tim Dixon noted that the IEA GHG has held a meeting with DNV the operators of that network and they have asked us to share these findings to kick start their network events. DNV don’t have any projects up and running yet to share their learning’s from. Heath and safety of CCS Paper GHG/09/15 refers. Tim Dixon presented an overview of the results of this study by HSE, on behalf of Mike Haines who project managed the study. A number of points of clarification were raised by members:

What are the risks related to mercury? Tim Dixon responded that this was explained in detail in the report

Did the study model escape of CO2? - Tim Dixon commented that there wasn’t any real data on escape modelling to refer to.

Fumihiro Ito (JGC) suggested that they would like to see natural hazards included. Tim Dixon responded that this was not covered in the scope of the work that is now finished. Removal of Impurities from CO2 Paper GHG/09/16 refers. Stanley Santos gave an overview of the study. A number of points of clarification were raised by members:

Is the CO level determined on the type of burner? Stanley stated that it was. What is the reference base case used? Stanley confirmed that a Capex increase of 20% was

used as the base case. John Karas (DRET, Australia) commented that there are thousands of miles of CO2 pipelines in the USA and there is little scope to change their current specifications. It comes down to capture plants having to meet those requirements. Even though there is an additional cost, the additional costs of modifying the pipelines could be significantly greater than cleaning out and purifying the CO2 at the capture plant.

16

GHG/09/37

Improved solvent scrubbing processes Paper GHG/09/17 refers. Stanley Santos presented an overview of this study. The following point of clarification was raised:

Were the processes looked at in steady state? Stanley confirmed they were. John Wilkinson (ExxonMobil) commented that if you are operating at steady state there is no mercury issue, but if you are shutting down and starting up that is when mercury becomes an issue. Phil Sharman (Alstom) commented that there are limitations in a study like this with novel cycles. John Gale agreed that doing detailed assessments become difficult when the information is not available in the public domain. Jim Craigen (Australian Coal Research Ltd) commented that IEA GHG needs to be careful about making sweeping statements on different capture technologies. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) reassured everyone that this is intended to be an objective forum. CO2 storage in gas fields Paper GHG/09/18 refers. Neil Wildgust presented an overview of this study. Several members expressed concerns about quoting the 1% leakage number because this may be misinterpreted. This concern was noted and the overview would be modified to assuage members concerns.

Action 14: General Manager. A number of points of clarification were raised by members:

Did the cost numbers developed for the cost curve include new pipelines and new wells? Neil confirmed that this was correct.

Were the costs based on reservoir characteristics or are they uniform assumptions? Neil answered that they are uniform assumptions.

Are there split costs for on and off shore? Neil confirmed that this was correct, the study allowed for differences between off-shore and on-shore costs.

Did the study allow for residual gas saturation? Neil confirmed that this was the case, by converting from total recoverable gas reserves, not using total pore space.

Erik Lysen (Netherlands) commented that this study confirms the Dutch experience that the more you study the less capacity you find. He also raised a word of caution on returning to the original pressure – in the Netherland fields it will never go back to original pressure. The pressure will always be lower by 10-20% to allow for some head room. 11. REVISED STUDY PROPOSAL - CAPTURE IN IRON AND STEEL PLANT Paper GHG/09/19 refers. John Gale described the background to this study so that members could clearly understand what is being presented to them. At the 28th ExCo two studies were proposed and voted on in the application of CCS in major manufacturing industries. One was on the cement industry (this study has been completed) and the second was on the iron and steel industry. However, IEA GHG had been unsuccessful in finding a contractor to undertake the latter study. At the 33rd ExCo, members voted not to put the study on hold. However, IEA GHG has subsequently identified a potential contractor in Sweden with assistance from Sven Olov Ericson (Sweden/Vice Chair). John Gale proposed that the presentation is made and then when prioritisation exercise discussion is held later in the meeting, members decide on whether this study should go ahead. Stanley Santos then presented an overview of the study to members. The proposal is for the study to be undertaken over 24 months. The decision on whether to proceed with the study was deferred until after the presentation of the current study prioritisation exercise.

17

GHG/09/37

12. STUDY PRIORITISATION Paper GHG/09/20 refers. Tim Dixon stated that 12 proposals were sent to members for voting with 2 resubmitted from the previous voting round and 10 new proposals (4 of which were ideas from members). Tim noted that proposal suggestions from members were up significantly from previous ExCo’s and also that more members voted this time than previously. The top 6 proposals were presented and he reminded members they also need to take into account the proposed iron and steel study in their final deliberations. Tim informed members that the General Manager had made provisions in the budget this financial year for 8 average sized studies plus 2 larger than average studies. The impurities study will be funded through the GCCSI (if voted through by members) which means the Programme can undertake a total of 11 studies this financial year. Pressurisation and brine displacement issues for deep saline formation storage Paper GHG/09/21 refers. Neil Wildgust noted that this proposal has arisen as an outcome from the GHGT9 conference held in Washington. There is a concern about what is going to happen if there are large multiple injections into a formation. Several members indicated that this and the ground water study should be phased or combined/reported together. John Gale agreed to consider this. Bill Reynen (Canada) asked if there will there be money for new modelling to extend this study rather than just going over old ground. Neil Wildgust said that the intention was to use new modelling data. Technical economic evaluations of new processes for co2 capture Paper GHG /09/22 refer. Stanley Santos presented an overview of the proposed study. The paper was based on a proposal received from ADEME (France). John Gale commented that IEA GHG had concerns whether we can physically do the report because of confidentiality issues and suggested we put it on hold until such time that data is publicly available. Richard Rhudy (EPRI) suspected it is too premature to do anything. He commented that there may not be the technical information to do the study and we should park the report as suggest by the General Manager. Helle Mostad (Statoil) and Doug Campbell (CEA – Canada) also agreed with this position. Potential risks to potable groundwater from co2 storage Paper GHG/09/23 refers. Neil Wildgust provided an overview of this proposed study. Groundwater is one of the key environmental receptors and could be the primary receptor for a CO2 leakage pathway. The following comments were noted:

Bill Koppe (CIAB) suggested a new title for the study ‘Potential impacts to potable groundwater’. He commented that we should not assume that impacts are always negative, some maybe positive such as repressurisation of groundwater.

Richard Rhudy (EPRI) suggested a new piece of modelling work by EPRI could feed into this study.

Francois Kalaydijan (IFP) asked if the study be based on a case study. Also, the methodology used will be important because the conclusions will be region dependent. Neil Wildgust confirmed that there would be at least one case study.

John Carras (Australia) suggested this could be a larger than average study with 2 or more cases studied in different regions

Barriers to CCS Implementation – capacity constraints Paper GHG/09/24 refers. John Gale noted that such a study is a part of a broader assessment of the barriers to the large scale implementation of CCS alongside other options for GHG mitigation such as renewables. A lot of technology needs to be introduced to reduce emissions globally at the same time. The deployment of all technologies could be constrained by the supply of equipment, expertise and other general implementation delays. A related study by IEA CCC found supply constraints for Clean Coal Technologies. The following comments were received:

18

GHG/09/37

Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) commented that there should be links with this study and the IEA World Energy Outlook, which will help scope the technology capabilities that will be deployed. John Gale agreed.

Nick Otter (GCCSI) commented that such a study demonstrates the key roles of IEA GHG and GCCSI. The IEA GHG study will indentify the potential barriers and GCCSI can help overcome them.

John Wilkinson (ExxonMobil) commented that a number of professional societies have done current and future capability work that could be tied into this study.

Jim Craigen (Australian Coal Research Ltd) commented that he couldn’t see what distinguishes CCS from any other industry in their start up days and can’t see what this report would bring other than stating the obvious. John Topper commented that building on what is known will show us where critical points are and where the emphasis needs to be in breaking the log jam for technology deployment.

Potential for biomass and CCS Paper GHG/09/25 refers. Tim Dixon reviewed the background on this study looking at future emission scenarios that may require the world to go to negative emissions technologies. There is only one technology option that can do this and that is biomass with CCS. Groups such as Bellona are promoting this concept of negative emissions. This study proposal is aimed at understanding the realistic potential around biomass with CCS. John Wilkinson (ExxonMobil) sought clarification that the CCS and biomass study lays within IEA GHG’s remit. John Gale commented that here is a lot of political pressure on biomass with CCS and this is just the sort of study IEA GHG can do to give balanced information on the topic of biomass with CCS. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) commented that talk about negative emissions from biomass is creeping into the IPCC discussions. The IEA GHG study would help to put it into context. There were a number of points of clarification raised:

Is biodiesel included? Tim Dixon noted that bio ethanol is included. Will the study include gasification and biomass/fossil fuel co-firing? Tim Dixon noted that the

intention was to explore 100% biomass usage. Other studies underway are looking at co-firing. It was noted that several other members also supported including co-firing in the study.

Sven-Olov Ericson (Sweden/Vice Chairman) commented that it is urgent to get this study going to help the European renewable energy negotiations on legislation next year and it will also contribute to the development of scientific consensus on the issue for the next IPCC report. The study should look strategically at options and be flexible on whether it is biomass only. There are many options for co-firing. Do not be exclusive to biomass only. Potential effects of CO2 waste stream impurities on geological storage Paper GHG/09/26 refers. Neil Wildgust reminded members that GCCSI will fund this study. The following points of clarification/comments were received:

Will this extend to acid gas injection with large concentrations of H2S? Neil Wildgust said that it was not the intention of the study to cover acid gas. For those interested, there is quite a bit of western Canadian experience on acid gas injection in the public domain.

Using the word waste in the title is not recommended because in some jurisdictions that triggers unfavourable regulatory treatment.

Richard Rhudy (EPRI) added that if this study could help in clarifying what is a hazardous waste it would be very useful. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) summarised the discussions. He proposed that Members agree to undertake 5 studies as top priorities, but excluding the techno economic capture study. He also noted that we will proceed with the study on capture in iron and steel plants discussed earlier. The members unanimously agreed to proceeding with studies as outlined by the Chair.

19

GHG/09/37

Trygve Riis (Norway) indicated that the study on the Deep Removal of Amines (35-3) is very important to Norway. He would like to hear comments and views from other members. John Gale commented that the Ad Hoc Strategy Group did identify it as appropriate to do something on this topic. John Topper said that there had been a number of papers on this topic recently in the CO2 capture network meetings. There is some very important work underway in Norway and John suggested Trygve provide him with some contacts and he will endeavour to hold a meeting of a small expert group to discuss the issue and facilitate the sharing of information. John Gale suggested that a workshop be held with the appropriate parties which then allow the Programme to frame what needs to be done. Erik Lysen (Netherlands) strongly supported Norway’s point of view and noted that a workshop is a good starting point. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) concluded that a workshop should be held first as proposed above before the program undertakes further work in this area.

Action 15: General Manager. 13. FUTURE VOTING & MEMBERS IDEAS FOR STUDIES Members agreed to return all non selected proposals for future voting rounds. The proposal on financing CCS needs to take into accounts activities by GCCSI in this area. There were no suggestions made at this meeting for new studies. The General Manager will circulate a request for new ideas from members shortly after the ExCo meeting as per standard practise.

Action 16: General Manager 14. FEEDBACK FROM GHGT9 AND DIRECTION OF FUTURE CONFERENCES Paper GHG/09/27 refers. John Gale outlined the outcomes from GHGT-9 and the discussions held between the organising committees from GHGT-9 and GHGT-10 on how GHGT-10 should be focused. General points gained from GHGT-9 feedback were:

GHGT9- had a big poster session and based on delegate feedback the discussion sessions will be retained.

A Summary report was produced for the first time which has been well received. and will be continued for future conferences.

A limited number of delegates had requested presentations be available on the web site as well as papers. Both organising committees were against this because of the extra work load it created.

Delegates were in favour of holding a CCS Expo. This will be considered for GHGT-11and possibly could be built into GHGT-10.

There were 1600 attendees at GHGT-9. The venue for GHGT-10 can hold up to 2000+ but it is felt that the numbers will be around 1800.

A number of members also requested the presentations be made available. John Gale will refer this back to the next GHGT-10 organising committee meeting for their consideration as it would be their decision to implement.

Action 17: General Manager John Gale proposed for future conferences that the local host will focus on local organisation issues in conjunction with the local conference organiser and IEA GHG will run the Programme Committee. This was agreed by members. Regarding GHGT-11, John Gale asked if any organisation around the table who would like to host GHGT-11 to let him know. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) advised members that the GHGT-11 should be held in the Asia Pacific Region. Kelly then asked John Gale to send information via email to countries in the region to see if we can solicit interest.


20

GHG/09/37

15. FEEDBACK ON MODELLING NETWORK MEETING Paper GHG/09/28 refers. Neil Wildgust stated that the first workshop of this new network was held in Orleans, France in February 2009 attracting over 100 delegates from 14 countries. A report will be issued shortly and the presentations will be made available on the www.co2captureandstorage.info web site. The network meeting was well received by all concerned. 16. FEEDBACK ON PRACTICAL R&D ACTIVITIES IEA GHG Weyburn-Midale Monitoring Project Paper GHG/09/29 refers. Neil Wildgust gave an overview of the IEA Weyburn-Midale project. The Weyburn team are structuring research to fill the gaps identified in the IPCC report on CCS published in 2004/5. The IEA GHG has a MoU with the project and attends as a non-voting representative on the Steering Committee (Tim Dixon) and also as a representative on the technical committee (Neil Wildgust). MoveCBM Paper GHG/09/30 refers. Neil Wildgust gave a brief report on the EC supported MoveCBM project which has now ended. John Carras (Australia) said it is important that we see ECBM as a low emissions technology as opposed to storage in coal. It is a niche opportunity and a technology in its infancy. Francois Kalaydjian (IFP-France) noted that China is very interested in ECBM. Gabrielle Marquette (Schlumberger) emphasised this point and highlighted that the project included a number of Chinese partners. He also emphasised the importance of establishing/continuing dialogue with China (especially though the EU-China CCC/CCS working group, as well as the EU Knowledge Sharing working Group) if we are to motivate China to take up CCS. John Gale commented that there is definitely an opportunity for CO2-ECBM but how big it will be as a storage option is not yet defined. As a storage option it will probably be regionally based. 17. STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL WEBSITE UPDATES Paper GHG/09/31 refers. Tim Dixon noted that two summer schools have been held to date and their success is evident by the growing numbers applying to attend. This year’s summer school will be held in August in Lorne, Australia and will be hosted by the CO2CRC.

Tim commented that we need to keep in contact and support the students who have attended. Among other things, there has been a web discussion forum and a face book page set up. The benefits for the students are that it keeps them in touch with their peers and industry. The web site also provides the IEA GHG members with access to presentations, information on student activities and interactions and possible recruitment opportunities. The CSLF have a similar idea to set up an interactive website. There have been mutual discussions and there is approval for co-operation to develop this joint website during 2009. John Gale noted that it shows an ongoing collaboration with the CSLF as well as the GCCSI discussed earlier. 18. FEEDBACK FROM THE COP/MOP AND STATUS OF CCS AND CDM Paper GHG/09/32 refers. Tim Dixon provided members with a summary of the progress made including CCS in the CDM. Helle Brit Mostad (StatoilHydro) said they found the report Tim circulated after the COP meeting in Poznan useful. In response to a question from Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair), Tim Dixon said that there is nothing on the table about new mechanisms as yet. Fuad Siala (OPEC) said that- at the last ExCo, members decided to try and organise some activities regarding the financing of CCS projects in developing countries. Our decision was to wait to see what

21

GHG/09/37

happened at Poznan. What is the impact, do we wait until Copenhagen or is there a possibility of going ahead? Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) commented that we were at an impasse, so it is a work in progress. Clement Yoong (DRET, Australia) commented that a report was coming out in June from the Asian Development Bank that might help this discussion.

Action 19:– General Manager 19. IEA GHG INTERACTIONS WITH IEA Paper GHG/09/33 refers. Tim Dixon provided a brief update to the members on interactions with the IEA. We are continuing to work with IEA on the IEA Regulators Network, and continuing with web conferences (webinars). One has been held on transport and safety, one on demonstration projects, one on liability and insurance (chaired by IEA GHG) and recently one on financing and ETS (suggested by IEA GHG). All meetings are recorded and presentations are available on the IEA website. IEA CCS Road mapping – a number of meetings have been held, IEA GHG is continuing to provide input. The IEA CCS roadmap is now aiming to be ready for reporting to Ministers in October 2009. John Topper commented that there is some confusion on road mapping. The WPFF decided to create a global roadmap on coal. Initially this was looking at power generation, industrial uses, cement, steel etc not just in OECD but in some developing countries as well. The IEA decided to do 18 roadmaps with one of them on CCS. The IEA CCC is due to report to the WPFF on a coal road mapping through to carbon capture exercise without including all the soft elements in the roadmap. The WPFF road map is now in draft format and it will feed into the IEA’s compilation of the different roadmaps. 20. MEMBERS ACTIVITIES Fuad Siala presented on the OPEC strategy on CCS. Fuad Siala will provide a copy of the presentation for distribution to the members.

Action 20: OPEC Member Trevor Matheson (New Zealand) advised members that there is an activity taking place in New Zealand just after the ExCo similar to the forum being held in Australia. A report will be produced and made available to members

Action 21: General Manager Erik Lysen (Netherlands) has managed the CATO project in the Netherlands over last 5 years and has recently released a book on the program’s achievements, which last week was accepted by the Government. The Netherlands Govt has now approved 5M Euros for a new program for the next 5 years with a focus on activities to support demonstration projects. He will disseminate copies of the summary report for circulation to the members. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) noted that an international performance assessment centre (IPAC) has been set up in Regina. Malcolm Wilson will speak about this at the forum tomorrow in Brisbane. Please contact Malcolm if you can’t attend but would like information on this activity. Tony Surridge noted that South Africa is also developing a coal roadmap. The South African Centre for CCS had a signing ceremony for its charter this year. The Minister has given full support and the centres activities are also supported by governments of Norway and UK and SASOL. There is a conference planned for September when the Centre will be launched. A draft of a storage atlas will also be available in April next year.

22

GHG/09/37

21. DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS Paper GHG/09/34 refers. John Gale outlined the dates and locations of the next meetings, as follows:

the 36th ExCo will take place from the 7th to the 9th of October 2009 in Zurich, Switzerland hosted by Swiss Federal Office of Energy and Alstom

the 37th ExCo will take place in Ponferrada, Spain in 9-10 April 2010 hosted by CUIDEN. 38th ExCo will take place in The Hague, Netherlands, 17-18 September hosted by Ministry of

Economic Affairs. 39th ExCo location is to be advised. 40th ExCo will be held in London as it will host the 20th anniversary celebrations of the IEA

GHG. 41st ExCo may be held in Norway.

Bill Reynen (Canada) said that Canada would be glad to host the 39th ExCo and the Chair and members accepted his proposal to do so. 22. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) thanked the Australian Consortium for hosting this ExCo, which he commended as very successful and declared the meeting closed. Fuad Siala (OPEC) passed on the thanks of the members and sponsors of the program to Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) and his team for hosting this ExCo meeting. .

23

GHG/09/37

ANNEX 1

Letter From IEA OLC Concerning State Owned Enterprises

24

GHG/09/38


CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES

Two members (Kevin McCauley, B&W and Tim Hill, EoN) had sent apologises and asked that these be recorded on the minutes. Gabriel Marquette (Schlumberger) said that under item 16, Feedback on Practical R&D Projects, he had highlighted the interest of MoveCBM to China because of the participation of Chinese partners such as Tsinghua University in the project. He said that he had also taken the opportunity to mention the importance of establishing/continuing with China. These corrections were made as requested. Members are asked to formally approve the minutes.

31

GHG/09/39


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 Operating Agent/ General Manager

Advise on VAT developments.

Operating Agents Report

2 General Manager Members to suggest ideas for future secondees. On-going 3 General Manager Draft Paper on State owned industries and present at

CERT meeting Complete

4 General Manager Composite ExCo brochure for members to consider Complete 5 Members Comments on Annual review Complete 6 General Manager Present general financial situation to members Complete 7 Members Any members with problems over 16 month invoicing

should contact the General Manager. On-going

8 General Manager Modify membership guidelines and circulate to members before ExCo

Complete

9 General Manager Modify draft strategy document and circulate to members before ExCo

In-hand

10 General Manager Complete GCCSI sponsor negotiations Complete 11 General Manager IEA GHG to become GCCSI Foundation member Complete 12 Operating Agent/

General Manager Complete contract negotiations with GCCSI Complete

13 General Manager Provide information on hydrate issues On-going 14 General Manager Modify Gas study overview Complete 15 General Manager Organise workshop on environmental impacts of

solvent slippage In-hand

16 General Manager Circulate request for new ideas for studies Complete 17 General Manager Discuss presentation issue with GHGT-10 OC Complete 18 General Manager Contact members in Asia regarding hosting GHGT-11 Complete 19 General Manager Review ADB report and consider next steps on

financing issues for developing countries On-going

20 OPEC Member Provide copy of presentation at 35th ExCo Complete 21 General Manager Circulate report from NZ forum Complete

33

GHG/09/41


OPERATING AGENTS REPORT

At the 35th ExCo meeting the Operating Agent agreed to keep members apprised of developments on two issues namely VAT and the interaction with IEA OLC concerning state owned enterprises. VAT The awaited response from HMRC had arrived on 22nd July 2009. The response from HMRC confirmed that despite the evidence presented in our letter they still considered that IEA EPL should be deregistered for VAT HMRCs position was discussed at length at the IEA EPL Board meeting held on the 4th August 2009. The IEA EPL board concluded that HMRC’s position not acceptable and that we should request a second hearing since the decision was based on discussions with a Tax Inspector in November 2007 who had subsequently retired. That request was made and at the time of writing this paper a decision on whether IEA EPL would be granted a new hearing is awaited. Members will be made aware of any developments to this situation at the meeting. IEA OLC A letter has been drafted by John Topper in consultation with the chairs of the IEA GHG and IEA CCC and the General Manager outlining the position of both IA’s concerning state owned enterprises. The letter was circulated to members for comment. A number of comments were received which were generally supportive of the IA’s position and the letter adjusted where necessary before being sent to the IEA for inclusion in the CERT meeting papers. The letter is attached for member’s reference. John Topper will attend the CERT meeting to present the IA’s case.

35

GHG/09/41

State Owned Industries and Sponsor membership of Implementing Agreements A note by Dr John Topper prepared with approval of members of IEA Clean Coal Centre and IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Background and Issues Membership of Implementing Agreements is guided by the “Framework for Implementing Agreements”; effective since 2003. Two grades of member are allowed under the terms of the Framework – Contracting Parties, who are designated by governments and Sponsors who are not so designated. In the intervening period IEA GHG and IEA CCC have built up their Sponsor membership. Without any deliberate intent, in both cases, about half the members are now in this category. The issue of balance between the two has been debated by both ExCo’s with a result that they wish to consider every application on its own merits rather than instigate some hard rules on maintaining set proportions. Sponsor voting rights are inferior to those of Contracting Parties. It is important for CERT members to understand that IEA CCC and IEA GHG are cost sharing agreements, each with budgets around €2million/yr, income derived overwhelmingly from member subscriptions. In the case of IEA CCC all Contracting Parties pay more than all Sponsors. In the case of IEA GHG, Contracting Parties generally pay more than Sponsors although there are some exceptions emanating from the formulaic way in which CP subscriptions are determined. This is quite different to those IA’s which are task sharing agreements and has undoubtedly influenced the choice of membership grade selected in a number of cases where an option might seem to exist. A number of the Sponsors in membership are state owned enterprises. For IEA CCC these are Beijing Institute of Coal Chemistry, Eskom of S Africa, Eletrobras of Brazil, and Bharat Heavy Electrical of India – 4 out of 14 Sponsors. For IEA GHG these are Statoil Hydro, Statkraft, both of Norway, CEZ of Czech Republic and Vattenfall of Sweden 5 out of 21 Sponsors. In all cases, excepting Beijing Institute of Coal Chemistry, these were independent applications by organisations that were “not designated by governments”. It should be noted that the Governments of Norway and Sweden are also signatories of the IEA GHG Implementing Agreement and are represented as Contracting Parties by Ministry officials. Earlier in 2009 the OLC, in correspondence with the Operating Agent’s representatives for IEA CCC and IEA GHG expressed the view that ENEL of Italy, who were in the process of applying for GHG Sponsor membership, should be barred as a potential Sponsor because although they are no longer entirely state owned they are under a degree of state control and more to the point are the Contracting Party for Italy in a number of other IAs. The letter went on to state that the phrase in the Framework: “not designated by the governments of their respective countries” has always been understood as excluding government entities (which could be designated by government). It was implied that none of the state owned entities who have become Sponsors should have been allowed and some suggestions were made on how to “regularise”

36

GHG/09/41

the situation; none of which are regarded by the IA’s management and members as practicable because of the financial implications. Basically, changing funding structures for existing members will either create winners and losers or breach the principle of equitability, as explained in the addendum. It may be possible to adjust funding structures in future – in essence a significant increase in Sponsor subscriptions, which runs a real risk of reducing applications. Getting the balance right is not an easy matter and is really the business of the IA members. Views of IEA CCC and IEA GHG members The exchange of correspondence referred to above and the arising issues were debated at the IEA CCC ExCo in Dresden on 17 May 2009. In addition to CCC members the ExCo Chair and General Manager of IEA GHG were in attendance and the Chair of CERT and the desk officer for these IAs from the IEA Secretariat. The result was a general feeling that the OLC were now attempting to limit the range of interpretation of the Framework in a way likely to reduce IA flexibility in attracting new participants and that the matter should be referred to CERT who has final say in such matters. The Chair of CERT invited this brief and attendance at the November 2009 CERT meeting to expose the debate and issues to CERT members. Specific Points and Recommendations

1. The members of IEA CCC and IEA GHG support wholeheartedly policies of outreach to industry and Non-Member Countries (NMCs). The ability to bring Sponsors into our IAs has strengthened both the quality of our networks and added significantly to the relevance of our work programmes. It is our recommendation that CERT continue, as hitherto, to consider applications for Sponsor membership based on the wider issues of whether they add to this outreach and whether they are likely to make a useful contribution to the work done by the IAs.

2. Today ENEL are now only 30% owned by the state although the state is the largest and controlling share holder. Whether or not the inconsistency of their continuing representation of Italy in other IA’s as a CP should bar them as a Sponsor in IEA GHG is a matter for CERT. Our recommendation is that institutional neatness should not take precedence over ENEL’s undoubted potential contribution to the IEA GHG and Sponsor membership should be permitted (ENEL are now very active in the area of CCS with much research and two demonstration plants in design).

3. On the IEA’s website the downloadable pdf 2003 document about the Framework (link below),

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/techno/Framework_text.pdf Refers, in the section on participation, to “Sponsors, notably from the private sector” The word notably implies to us that some exceptions could be allowed. This interpretation is what we in the Implementing Agreements have always understood. This point has been checked with Jacek Podkanski who was the desk officer in 2003-2008 and was much involved in CERT in the

37

GHG/09/41

same period. When asked by email if he had any recollection of problems or objections to any of the existing state owned Sponsors at the time of their admission he replied as follows (on 18 May 2009) “No, there have never been any objections. On the contrary, the CERT wanted to introduce an institution of sponsors (following GHG Programme) not only to attract private corporations but also to enable state owned entities to join if it was otherwise difficult or impossible...” The above reinforces our recommendation that CERT continue to accept a healthy range of competence for the IAs to interpret the Framework as hitherto and as indicated above and treat each case on the merits of what the applicant brings to the IA and the IEA.

4. The Mexican Institute of Electricity Research (IIE) has acquired sufficient funding to join both IEA CCC and IEA GHG as a Sponsor in each case. But it is a state owned institution. Its Director has been made aware of a potential problem about membership status. Essentially, to be a CP in both would cost about 50% more. John Topper visits Mexico in early October and will report more at the CERT meeting. If the IIE is unable to pay the higher subscription for Contracting Party status, the problem comes back to CERT to decide whether to allow entry as a Sponsor. It should be noted that IIE are a Contracting Party in some other IAs – not clear if they are task sharing or cost sharing. Our recommendation is that IIE be allowed entry to IEA CCC and IEA GHG as a Sponsor if they cannot raise the funds for CP status and provided that the Government of Mexico is made aware and has no objection.

See also table overleaf

38

GHG/09/41

Addendum – Some additional Points

OLC originally suggested that both CCC and GHG have a preference for recruiting Sponsors (In a more recent letter dated 13 August the OLC accepts that we do prefer CPs and make efforts to get this status for new members)

We do prefer CPs but it is true that it is simpler to get agreement from industry than from Governments. The generally lower fee levels also encourage Sponsors to join. Efforts have been made by CCC to convert both Indian and S African Sponsorships to CPs – without success.

OLC suggest that existing state owned Sponsors somehow slipped through the IEA system in the period 2003-2009 but should not have been allowed to do so. (In fact there are 9 state owned Sponsors in these IA’s; a strong precedent)

Take the example of Norway who was represented in the ExCo from the outset by Statoil for over 10 years. When Govt took representation into the Ministry a few years ago, Statoil applied to be a Sponsor and were accepted without comment. We are quite sure that everyone concerned knew the circumstances and this was no inadvertent result.

Suggestions have been made by OLC on upgrading some state owned Sponsors to CP status

For two Norwegian and one Swedish Sponsor they would then have to share a vote as CPs with their Ministries. The GHG IA might lose significant funding. For all the others with the exception of S Africa in CCC it would cost much more. In the SA case two separate companies would have to pool their subscriptions and accept that they share a vote on the work programme even though they have very different interests.

On controlling who can and cannot be a Sponsor when the applicant is from a country where the Government has nominated a CP

We check that the appropriate CP is happy that the applicant is of sufficient standing and would add to the IA. There has been one case where a US applicant was rejected on the advice of the CP in IEA GHG. This could easily be extended to ensure that in NMCs and OECD countries not otherwise represented, that Government is happy that one of its enterprises becomes a Sponsor.

On subscription structures We are where we are in both IAs for largely historical reasons. Structural change which leads to losers and winners would not be acceptable to members. It would be possible to increase Sponsor fees for new entrants to close the gap with CPs, but likely to discourage applications.

39

GHG/09/42

IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME

36th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

PROGRESS REPORT Introduction This report provides a summary of activities completed since the last ExCo meeting (35th) held in Brisbane, Australia in April 2009. A lot of the work in this period has focused on expanding the office, advertising/employing new staff and updating office procedures. Preparatory efforts for the summer school, OCC-1 and GHGT-10 conferences have also required considerable staff input in this period. There has been a continuing high demand on staff time to attend external meetings and give presentations. Overall, staff workloads have been quite high during the summer period covering the time since the last ExCo and this one. Office/Operational Changes The existing offices have been extended to include a new open plan office for up to 4 staff members. The existing meeting room was also moved. This move required some refurbishment work to be completed, expanding the phone system and the IT network and a minimal amount of existing staff relocation. The office changes were completed on time and to budget. Some of the costs can be offset against the GCCSI contract (see Paper GHG/09/43). The open plan office was used for the work experience/seconded staff that came in over the summer period. To accommodate the increased demand for IT support, IEA GHG has moved from its exiting IT support contractor (an individual) and have signed a 1 year agreement with a specialist IT Support Company who are better able to provide the levels of IT support we require. The company has been active for 2 months now and we are pleased with the levels of support and service response times we are getting. Some upgrades to the office based network in IEA GHG have been made. The transfer of IT contractor and upgrades will mean there will be an increase in costs associated with computer support on the budget line than was made provision for in the original budget. As a result of the office expansion IEA GHG has updated its; Safety Manual, Risk/Fire/COSHH assessments all of which are required by the UKs Health and Safety Executive (HSE). VDU assessments have also been made for all individuals to conform to UK Health and Safety at Work requirements and new guidelines on manual handling circulated to all staff. Administrative procedures have been modified to accommodate the need for a separate ring fenced set of finance records for the GCCSI contract (see Paper GHG/09/43). Staff Related Three new staff have been appointed to date. Mohammad Abu Zahra has joined the Programme Team from TNO in the Netherlands as a Project Manager. Mohammad will join the Capture and Integrated Systems team. He will focus his activities on post combustion capture primarily and will undertake a study on what we have learnt on capture to compliment that done previously on storage. Laura Davis will provide administrative support to the office assisting our Office Manager Tricia Watkins. Ellen Murdock will support our Events Manager, Sian Twinning and will assist the operations of our international research networks, conferences and workshops. IEA GHG is currently in the process of recruiting two new project officers, one to replace Brendan Beck who left in February to join IEA and a new Project Manager to lead up our

41

GHG/09/42

dissemination activities. Members will be given an update of the status of staff recruitment at the ExCo meeting. During the year so far IEA GHG has had a number of seconded placements and work experience students that have assisted us and made a significant contribution to our activities. Their input has largely covered the loss of Brendan Beck over the summer period.

Robert Strübbe an undergraduate student from Florence University, Italy joined IEA GHG for a 3 month period a funded under the EC Marie Curie Scheme. Robert undertook a review of water usage in power plants and provided ASPEN modelling support to the team.

Monica Lupion, an Associate Professor from University of Seville, Spain has worked with IEA GHG over the summer period to support our educational programme activities, namely the summer school series. Monica is also the External Affairs Director at CUIDEN our Spanish member and is our Alternate member for Spain.

Joe Da Costa, a Research Group Leader at the University of Queensland, Australia worked with us for a short period over the summer and put together a report on CCS based educational programmes in Europe. This report will be input to the CSLF Technical Group Task Force on Capacity Building that IEA GHG contributes to.

IEA GHG also had two work placement students over the summer: Agi Burra from University of Adelaide, Australia who assisted us with our deliverables to the EC CO2Remove Project and Imogen Nicholson who is studying an MSc at the University of Southampton, UK who assisted us with the updating of the Practical R, D & D database. IEA GHG is interested in attracting secondee’s to work with the Programme and if members have any suggestions for secondee’s we would welcome them. 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 between the 35th and 36th meetings, studies that will be underway at the time of the 36th meeting and studies that are outstanding are summarised in the tables below. Table 1 Technical Studies published since the 35th ExCo meeting Title Contractor Report

number Publication

date

Assessment of Sub Sea Ecosystem Impacts

Dr Rachel Dunk,

Crichton Carbon Centre

2008/8 March 2009

Storage in Depleted Gas Fields Poyry 2009/01 July 2009 Post Combustion capture – Solid Sorbents and Membranes IEA CCC 2009/02 April 2009

Upgraded calculator for CO2 pipeline systems

Gastec /AMEC 2009/03 Feb 2009

Safety in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage

UK HSL Laboratory 2009/6 August 2009

42

GHG/09/42

In addition to the technical studies, IEA GHG has published two technical reviews: Partial Capture of CO2, 2009/TR2 published in May 2009 and Criteria for technical and economic assessment of plants with CO2 capture, 2009/TR3 also published in May 2009. Table 2 Studies being reported Title Contractor Publication date Removal of impurities from CO2 Advantica

September 2009 Improved solvent scrubbing processes SINTEF September 2009 Site Characterisation Criteria ARC For Approval at

36th ExCo

Long term integrity of storage – well abandonment

TNO

Prospects for storage of CO2 in EOR ARI Storage capacity coefficients EERC CCS Life Cycle Analysis – Literature review Jülich Research

Institute Use of biomass with CCS – part 1: combustion processes

Foster Wheeler

Table 3: Studies underway Title Contractor Scheduled

publication date Best practise guidelines on site characterisation DNV October 2009 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 Evaluation of the water usage and loss of power plants with CO2 Capture

Foster Wheeler Italia

January 2010

Injection Strategies for CO2 Storage Sites CO2CRC January 2010 Quantification techniques for CO2 leakage CO2GeoNet March 2010 Impacts of high concentrations of SO2 and SO3 and CO2 capture systems

Doosan Babcock March 2011

Table 4: Studies out to tender Title Proposal number Incorporating future technological improvements in existing CO2 capture plants

34-2

CO2 Capture in the Iron and Steel Industry 35-13 Potential Effects of CO2 Waste Stream Impurities on Geological Storage (fund

36th exco meeting exco/36exco papers.pdf · 36th exco meeting 8th – 9th october 2009 zurich,...

Documents