exco minutes minutes final.doc · web viewminutes of the 33rd executive committee meeting berlin,...

IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMMEMINUTES OF THE 33 rd EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

Berlin, Germany, 22nd – 23rd April 2008

PRESENT

MembersDr Kelly Thambimuthu (Chairman) Centre for Low Emission Technology AustraliaDr Jon Davis Rio Tinto AustraliaDr Vassilios Kougionas European CommissionMr. Bill ReynenDr Malcolm Wilson

Natural Resources CanadaUniversity of Regina

CanadaCanada

Mr. Michael Madsen Vattenfall DenmarkMr. Ilkka Savolainen VTT FinlandDr Gwenael Guyonvarch ADEME FranceMr. Jürgen-Friedrich Hake Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH GermanyDr Jochen Seier Projektträger Jülich GermanyDr Hee-Moon Eum KEPRI KoreaDr Robert Whitney CRL Energy Ltd New ZealandMr. Trygve Riis The Research Council of Norway NorwayDr Faud Siala OPECDr Namat AbuAl-Soof OPECMs Marian Ferre CIUDEN SpainMr. Sven-Olov Ericson (Vice Chair) Ministry of Sustainable Development SwedenDr Gunter Siddiqi Swiss Federal Office of Energy SwitzerlandMr. Erik H Lysen Utrecht Centre for Energy research The NetherlandsMr. Peter Versteegh SenterNovem The NetherlandsMiss Rachel Crisp BERR UKDr Jay Braitsch US Department of Energy USAMr. Nick Otter ALSTOMDr Markus Wolf ALSTOM Mr. Kevin McCauley Babcock & WilcoxMr. Arthur Lee ChevronMr. Ales Laciok CEZDr Cal Cooper ConocoPhillipsDr Tim Hill E.ON UKMr. Richard Rhudy EPRIMr. John Wilkinson ExxonMobilMs Carrie Pottinger IEADr Johannes Heithoff RWEMr. Gabriel Marquette SchlumbergerDr Helle Brit Mostad StatoilHydroMr. Luc de Marliave TOTAL SA

IEA GHG Mr. John Gale IEA GHGMr. Brendan Beck IEA GHGMr. Neil Wildgust IEA GHGMr. Tim Dixon IEA GHGDr Stanley Santos IEA GHGMr. Mike Haines IEA GHGMr. Toby Aiken IEA GHGDr John Topper IEA EPL

1

ObserversMr Ron Wilson Ontario Power Corporation CanadaMr Eemeli Tsupari VTT FinlandMr Francois Kalaydjian IFP FranceDr Arne Holl BMWI GermanyDr Knut Kubler BMWI GermanyMr Patrick Hansen Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH GermanyDr Hubert Howener Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH GermanyProf Alfons Kather Hamburg University of Technology GermanyDr Makoto Akai AIST JapanDr Nishio Masahiro AIST JapanDr Kameichiro Nakagawa RITE JapanProf Krzysztof Warmuzinski Polish Academy of Sciences PolandMrs Mónica Lupión CUIDEN SpainDr Anthony Surridge SANERI South AfricaMr Andrew Wharton BG Group

ApologisesDr John Carras CSIRO Energy Technology Australia

Mr. Theodor Zilner Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology

Austria

Dr Kenneth Möllersten Swedish Energy Agency SwedenDr Gardiner Hill BP

2

1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONSOn behalf of the Executive Committee (ExCo), Kelly Thambimuthu welcomed Members’ and Sponsors’ representatives and observers and introduced those attending an ExCo meeting for the first time, including several new members of the programme team.

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDAThe agenda and motion for procedure at the meeting (document GHG/08/01) was adopted.

3. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS (32nd) MEETINGDocument GHG/08/03 refers. The minutes were agreed, two amendments were received which were: Markus Wolf’s (Alstom) attributed activities on a CO2 purity study were made on behalf of Alstom, not ZEP as stated, although the results are to be made available to ZEP. Also the minutes will be amended to reflect that the offer of the summer school in Australia should be attributed to the CO2CRC and not the University of Adelaide.

Members formally approved the minutes of the 32nd meeting subject to the listed modifications being made.

4. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE 31st MEETINGDocuments GHG/08/05 refers. John Gale clarified that action 9 was ongoing although contact had been made, and actions 10 and 17 were still open and ongoing. All other actions were either complete or in hand. Makoto Akai (Japan) confirmed that Japanese membership had not officially completed its transition from NEDO to AIST. John Gale confirmed that the IEA legal office had sent a copy of a letter from the Government of Japan confirming the change of membership from NEDO to AIST. Members unanimously approved the change in Japanese representation from NEDO to AIST. John Gale will update the IEA legal office once the minutes are approved.

Action 1: General Manager

5. OPERATING AGENT REPORT(No paper). John Topper explained briefly the role of the operating agent to new members and those attending for the first time, and also his role within the IEA Clean Coal Centre. He then went through the changes to the Programme team structure with reference to the appointments of Tim Dixon and Neil Wildgust. He also explained that there had been adjustments to some staff salaries to bring them in line with the industry standard, and that new pension arrangements had been introduced for most staff. He finished by stating that on the whole, the move to the new offices had gone extremely well, and the team were much more settled in the new suite of offices.

6. PROGRESS REPORTDocument GHG/08/06 refers. John Gale summarised overall progress since the 32nd ExCo meeting.

MembershipMembership formalities have been completed for OPEC, Spain, Statkraft, CEZ Group and Conoco Phillips.

With regard to new members, John Gale explained the issues encountered with the membership of South Africa, and Tony Surridge of SANERI was invited to outline the issues within South Africa impacting on the membership process. He explained that South Africa has a huge reliance on coal and coal technologies, and therefore are interested in looking at clean coal technologies and CCS. A study completed in 2004 identified significant potential for CO2 geological storage. All these issues contributed to South Africa’s/SANERI’s the desire to join the programme. Political issues within South Africa were hampering this process at present. In the event that South Africa could not join in the near future SANERI would wish to join as sponsors, with work ongoing to convert to full country membership at a later stage. Tony Surridge mentioned that the IEA GHG had been asked to participate in a CCS conference that took place in South Africa last February, specifically John Gale had been asked to speak and had accepted – Tony Surridge officially thanked IEA GHG and John Gale for their contribution to the success of that meeting and the subsequent road mapping exercise.

3

The Executive Committee unanimously resolved to invite SANERI to join the Implementing Agreement for a Co-operative Programme on Technologies Relating to Greenhouse Gases Derived from Fossil Fuel Use as a sponsor in the absence of South African membership as a contracting party. The Executive Committee authorised the General Manager to expedite the formal procedures for SANERIs membership as a sponsor and complete negotiations on the terms and conditions on behalf of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee also agreed unanimously for the General Manager to continue discussions to convert SANERIs sponsors’ role to full South African membership as a contracting Party in the future.


The Executive Committee discussed a letter received from CEPAC (see Appendix 1), outlining CEPAC’s interest in joining the Implementing Agreement for a Co-operative Programme on Technologies Relating to Greenhouse Gases Derived from Fossil Fuel Use as a Contracting Party representing Brazil. The Executive Committee unanimously resolved to invite CEPAC to join the Implementing Agreement for a Co-operative Programme on Technologies Relating to Greenhouse Gases Derived from Fossil Fuel Use as a Contracting party on behalf of Brazil. The Executive Committee authorised the General Manager to expedite the formal procedures for Brazil’s membership as a contracting party and complete negotiations on the terms and conditions on behalf of the Executive Committee.


John Gale then outlined that discussions had been held with CIAB with regard to them joining as a sponsor. CIAB despite being another IEA body had been told they could join an implementing agreement by IEA Legal Office. Members were asked to discuss any issues arising from this. Rob Whitney (New Zealand) expressed his concern as there were some members of the CIAB who were already supporting the programme through existing country membership arrangements such as those in place in New Zealand. CIAB membership could, therefore, have an adverse impact on some country memberships. The General Manager indicated that there were currently 40 members of the CIAB, only 6 had existing links to the programme. John Topper stated that he felt that those members were unlikely to withdraw from country based consortia supporting the IEA GHG if CIAB joined, and also that there were positive benefits because the coal industry is poorly represented in IEA GHGs current membership. Jon Davis (Australia) felt that it is unlikely to cause any issues and the potential benefit of CIAB joining as a member would be high. John Gale indicated that the discussions were on going and no decision had yet been taken, he had been invited to a CIAB Associates meeting in Beijing, in June to discuss the issue of CIAB membership further and he would report back to members as details became available. It was agreed that the General Manager should continue discussions with CIAB but report back to the Executive Committee before any decision was taken.


It was also discussed that there is still some interest from other countries and organisations, namely: China, Greece, Ireland, Saudi Aramco, Linde, Air Products and IIE in Mexico. John Gale will keep members informed of any progress made on these discussions.

Action 5: General Manager Support of Members ActivitiesJohn Gale outlined several aspects where the programme is supporting activities in member countries. These activities included workshops on CCS run at KEPRI in Korea, provision of technical support to members collaborating on the EC CCS Directive, support for Finnish efforts on CCS and most recently the programme organised a technical review of the US DOE Regional Partnerships Programme.Administration/Operational IssuesJohn Gale explained that amongst the staff changes was the appointment of Tricia Watkins as Office Manager, and since the appointment many administrational activities and documents have been updated and streamlined, including a more comprehensive, user-friendly expense claim system, travel authorisation system, other filing and banking systems all contributing to the smoother running of the programme team office on a day-to-day basis. John Topper also commented that in December 2007

4

the programme teams of the IEA GHG and IEA CCC were brought together to have a meeting as the CCC staff are becoming more involved in CCS work and it was thought that all team members should be aware of the work of each company to avoid overlap and promote co-operation. StudiesJohn Gale stated only 60% of members had voted in this study round and encouraged Members to vote for which new studies they would like the Programme to undertake. He also stated that many Members voted late and urged Members to vote on time to avoid delaying the preparations for the ExCo meeting. Practical R&DThe practical R&D projects that the Programme is involved in were outlined. It was noted that the final Phase of the IEA GHG Weyburn-Midale CO2 monitoring project had now started. Comments were received at this point from Bill Reynen (Canada) regarding the Weyburn project. He explained that the CSLF were making several awards for CCS projects, and that if Weyburn Phase I was officially complete it may be eligible for such an award. John Gale confirmed that Phase I was complete and that the results had been presented at GHGT 7.Research networksThe network activities continued to be very popular amongst the technical community and Members alike and generate a lot of interest in the Programme as a whole.GHGT ConferencesProgress on the GHGT-9 conference was summarised; 950 abstracts had been received and the Programme Committee and reviewers were now actively working to develop the technical programme for the conference. Questions were asked about GHGT 9 and whether the conference would run parallel sessions, and it was confirmed that there would be between 3 and 5 parallel streams of presentations on varying topics. Members and sponsors were advised to book hotel rooms early as there was a block booking made at the conference hotel (The Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington D.C.), but hotel availability could not be guaranteed closer to the dates of the conference.The MOU between Ecofys and IEA GHG for GHGT-10 had been agreed; early next year IEA GHG would invite members to consider their interest in hosting GHGT-11 in 2012.Capacity Building ActivitiesThe main capacity building activity was the summer school. Planning was underway for the 2008 summer school to be held in Canada. The next summer school, after Canada would be held in Australia. Kelly Thambimuthu stated that the July break in Australia would be a good time to hold the event in terms of student availability. Bill Reynen informed the members that the CSLF are attempting to form a web-based discussion group for students interested in CCS and that this could form a useful dissemination tool to reach a wider audience. Tim Hill (E.ON-UK) questioned whether we were tracking the activities of the students after the summer school, and it John Gale said there were plans to do that at GHGT-9.Communication activitiesElsevier had agreed to an increase in John Gales Editor in chief bursary for the journal. The journal was increasing in popularity and will go to six issues next year. Special issues for CCP2 and GHGT-9 are planned for 2009. The web sites remain well visited and Greenhouse Issues remains popular.

7. ANNUAL REPORTDocument GHG/08/07 refers. John Gale reported that the Annual Report had been prepared, and a copy had been circulated to members prior to the ExCo meeting to receive comments. The report was well received, with only a few minor corrections being returned, mainly referring to names and address corrections to the list of members. Members were requested to confirm any further changes within 2 weeks to John Gale or Toby Aiken. Members approved the Annual Report subject to changes notified at the ExCo meeting.

Action 6: Members to notify General Manager of any changes to Annual report

5

8. STRATEGIC PLANNING ACTIVITIESDocument GHG/08/08 refers. The previous ExCo meeting in Korea agreed that there should be a small strategy planning group established to discuss the future strategy of the programme. John Gale reported that this group had been established and the group had met before this meeting. The Ad Hoc strategy group agreed that a formal strategy paper would be developed by the General Manager prior to the 34th ExCo meeting to be discussed by the Ad Hoc group and then presented to the members. A number of actions were agreed:

Regarding contracting parties it was agreed that all IEA/OECD countries were free to join if they expressed their interest.

Developing countries identified by the IEA NEET initiative, currently India, China, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico would be considered for membership.

A set of guidelines would be drafted for approval for the addition of new sponsors to the programme.

Dr Faud Siala (OPEC) suggested that there should be guidelines drawn up for country membership as well as sponsor membership. Kelly Thambimuthu stated that we would continue to look at countries on a case-by-case basis

Gabrielle Marquette (Schlumberger) indicated a concern about the eligibility of current sponsors following the development of these guidelines. It was confirmed by John Topper and John Gale that the guidelines would definitely not affect current sponsors, but would just act as an audit for assessing new sponsor membership.

Comments were received by several members, starting with Peter Versteegh (The Netherlands) as to whether non-OECD countries were considered as contracting parties or some different status. John Topper and Kelly Thambimuthu confirmed that they are considered as contracting parties, but new country membership must be confirmed by the governing board of the IEA.

The next comment came from Trygve Riis (Norway) regarding the size of the ExCo meetings. He observed that the meetings continue to grow in size and attendance, and questioned whether we should look to introduce a new format to the meetings. The question was taken by John Gale, and he confirmed that we were starting to look at alternatives, for example this 33 rd meeting only permitted 1 space per member at the main table, with the alternates sitting behind their members with the observers. Kelly Thambimuthu confirmed that we would evaluate the effectiveness of this method over the course of this meeting and proceed accordingly.


Another topic covered by the Ad Hoc strategy group was the proposed re-branding and re-design of the IEA GHG logo and corporate identity. Members expressed concern that the name would be changed, but it was confirmed that the full programme name would remain unchanged, although the name on the logo may be shortened to IEA GHG. It was agreed that the General Manager would look to retain a professional designer to undertake the re-branding exercise.


Additional queries were raised with regard to the re-branding exercise, and John Wilkinson (ExxonMobil) asked whether there would be a change in focus of the activities undertaken by the programme. John Gale confirmed that the existing focus would remain the same, covering all greenhouse gasses, not just focussing on CCS. The need for a new mission statement and programme goals had been agreed by the Ad Hoc group; the General Manager will draft these for discussion and adoption by members before any rebranding takes place.


A discussion followed concerning the arrangement of a 20 th anniversary activity as the programme approaches its 20th year of operation in 2011. On the whole this was very well received, and it was agreed that the anniversary should be marked in some way. The General Manager agreed to look into possibilities and report back at the next ExCo meeting.


6

Peter Versteegh (The Netherlands) mentioned that the world’s media focus on bio fuels at the moment could suggest it was timely to commit to some work or study in this area. Sven-Olov Ericson (vice-chair, Sweden) pointed out that there was some work undertaken on the topic under phase 3 of the programme, which indicated that there were difficulties in applying methodologies developed for fossil fuels to different technologies. Arthur Lee (Chevron) agreed that we should not rule any work out, but have to be mindful of a limited budget. Ilkka Savolainen (Finland) suggested there would be some use in looking at the development of a whole-energy-system, to which it was suggested that the programme team look towards writing a report on the topic rather than performing a study. John Gale confirmed he would consider the issue and bring a proposal forward to the next meeting as appropriate.

Action 11: General Manager9. COMPLETED STUDIES Document GHG/08/09 refers. John Gale explained that for a number of reasons there was only 1 completed study to report at this meeting but that between now and the next ExCo meeting he expected at least 6 studies would be reported upon.

Regional Assessment of Storage Capacity on the Indian SubcontinentToby Aiken gave a brief review of the study completed by the BGS, the overview of which was circulated in the ExCo folders as background. The study was well received, and Dr Faud Siala (OPEC) questioned whether it was intended to perform any similar studies for other regions. John Gale stated that there had been a suggestion of a similar study covering South America, but there was very little interest at the time. Peter Versteegh (The Netherlands) questioned what the geopolitical issues were as the report alluded to geopolitical issues associated with cross boundary transport and storage, and it was clarified that international relations within the subcontinent were often somewhat strained.

Jay Braitsch (USA) queried the technical barriers to basalt storage, and these were explained as a lack of knowledge compared with storage in oil and gas fields, and there was as yet no proof of concept of storage in basalt formation.

Bill Reynen (Canada) mentioned inconsistencies in capacity methodologies causing issues with this type of study, and advised caution before continuing with similar studies in wider regions. John Gale replied that the study has used the CSLF capacity assessment methodology to try and make it comparable with other studies.

Arthur Lee (Chevron) expressed interest in seeing a similar piece of work covering Latin America. John Topper commented that many of the countries in Latin and South America do not have accurate resource estimates, and so accurate storage capacity estimates are a long way off in these regions. John Gale noted that a study on a regional assessment for South America had been proposed previously to the ExCo but did not gain sufficient votes to go forward and had been withdrawn.

10. FUTURE STUDIESStudies in Progress and Prioritisation of New StudiesDocument GHG/08/10 refers. John Gale summarised the current status of ongoing studies and the situation regarding members voting on the prioritisation of future studies. John Gale also mentioned that although the backlog of studies looks excessive, many of the studies are now at various stages from draft specifications being written to tenders received and the work being underway. Members questioned that with the backlog as large as it is should we not look to undertake any new work until it has been cleared but John Gale reassured the membership that with the new staffing in place the team was at full strength to tackle the backlog and manage the new studies approved by the ExCo.

Storage Capacity CoefficientsDocument GHG/08/11 refers. Neil Wildgust described the work involved with this proposed study which was initially suggested by the CSLF and members voted it in as the most popular of the suggested proposals.

7

Bill Reynen (Canada) commented that the CSLF were pleased that the study was so well received by IEA GHG. He suggested that John Bradshaw, Sally Benson and Stefan Bachu would be ideally placed as expert reviewers for the study as the authors of the previous works. Jay Braitsch (USA) queried the output format of the proposal as it was unclear from the presentation. Neil Wildgust confirmed that the finished report would use existing information and data sources where ever possible, but wouldn’t go into country/region specific criteria, but would rather be a general overview with more detail available for geologists so that the report would be user friendly for many different end user groups. Kelly Thambimuthu stated that at some points the report would have to go into the level of detail required at a region/location specific level, and Neil Wildgust confirmed that where data was available, the study could consider that higher level of detail.

Richard Rhudy (EPRI) stated that the US Regional Partnerships work had encountered difficulties in capacity estimation, and on many levels, detailed reservoir information is used. There are many different methodologies, and using case studies relies on using the methodology chosen by the contractor involved with a case which may involve assumptions contrary to the study aims. John Gale stated that currently there are many different methodologies, based on many different levels of information, and that the CSLF have started to try and get a uniform methodology and consistent approach to capacity estimation. This isn’t a one-off process, and as more information becomes available, the results of the study will require refining and adjusting. John Gale went on to state that we are not looking to enforce a methodology, but to agree with all interested parties on a consistent approach. At this point Nick Otter (Alstom) contributed by stating that as a member of the CSLF, this would look to build on the current work they have undertaken and provide the basis for the next step forward. Other members were concerned by the term ‘coefficient’ and urged that a detailed explanation was used to avoid confusion in the future.

Kelly Thambimuthu summed up the discussion and members agreed to approve the study.

Life Cycle Emissions of plants with CCSDocument GHG/08/14 refers. Brendan Beck described this proposed study.

Richard Rhudy (EPRI) questioned whether the study would look at pre-combustion as well as IGCC and Brendan confirmed that the study would look into pre-combustion, as well as IGCC. There followed an extensive discussion around the terminology and how to define a ‘baseline’ scenario and the outcome was that it was felt that there was a need to clearly define in the project specification what was meant by each term, and the intended outcomes of the project. Cal Cooper (Conoco Phillips) suggested including the word ‘power’ in the title to avoid further confusion. Brendan confirmed that this would be taken into account and that the study would look into the sensitivities involved with different fuels and methods of capture, but pointed out that the study would actually form a high level technical overview to avoid debate over different methods of capture, and to ensure a transparent methodology is used throughout the study for the determination of the life cycle emissions. This was supported by Jon Davis (Australia) who added that a similar work had been done in Australia and the study could benefit from this.

Jay Braitsch (USA) commented that life cycle analysis was a very hot topical area for study, and that the US DOE has some work underway already through NETL, which could be of use to the study. Arthur Lee (Chevron) echoed Jay Braitsch’s comments, and added that if the study was to look at renewables, it must look at them in the same level of detail as traditional fossil fuels to avoid bias.

Markus Wolf asked whether the study would look at different CO2 purity levels, and John Gale cautioned that the study may look at the effects of differing purity levels, but that it had not yet been decided how far to take the project as the financial burden of the study could spiral out of control if the study looked in detail into every eventuality.

Lars Stromberg (Vattenfall) and Luc de Marliave (TOTAL SA) both commented that life cycle analysis was an important subject for power companies, and it was important for the study to use the most recent information to maintain credibility.

8

Kelly Thambimuthu rounded off the discussion by summarising that the work was of great potential value, but the study must be very specific as to what the aims and intentions were. The study was approved, but the Project Team and Jay Braitsch should cooperate and determine the relevance of the DOE work already underway and possible re-align the scope of the work to tie in and analyse the methodologies already used.


Integration of Post-Combustion CCS in Existing Industrial SitesDocument GHG/08/12 refers. Mike Haines described the work proposed in this study.

Lars Stromberg (Vattenfall) started the discussion by saying that the European sector had a lot of experience in heat sink coupling with power plants but that it was not as common outside Europe. On this point he stressed that the study should look as much as possible at the work already undertaken and completed to avoid ‘re-inventing the wheel’. The study should look towards a discussion of where CCS technologies are most favourable, and what the best situation for installation looks like. Mike Haines confirmed that the study would look at the areas discussed by the ExCo.

Richard Rhudy (EPRI) questioned which solvent processes would be looked at, and Mike Haines explained that the key point is to look at the heat level requirement, and characterise the solvents by the temperature requirements. Johannes Heitoff (RWE) mentioned that the Rotterdam area would be a good case study since there are a lot of different operations, and it is likely to be a site which sees extensive future development as well. Cal Cooper (Conoco Phillips) mentioned that it may be worthwhile looking at the wider chemical industry and not focussing solely on post-combustion, and Mike explained that the financial constraints of the project limited the extent to which this could be included, but that this could form the starting point for further studies which could then look at the wider chemical industry.

Kelly Thambimuthu confirmed that the study was agreed by members.

CO2 Capture from a CTL PlantDocument GHG/08/13 refers. Stanley Santos described the proposed study.

Kelly Thambimuthu started the discussion by summarising the benefits and disadvantages of looking at the direct and indirect routes for CTL. Stanley confirmed that the study scope would be limited as the topic area is broad, and the costs involved with looking at a multitude of options would render the project financially unviable. Stanley Santos agreed with Kelly Thambimuthu’s opinion that there could be benefit in looking at variables affecting syngas and hydrogen concentrations in the scope of the project.

Johannes Heithoff (RWE) expressed concern that with the financial scope of the project only considered as average, it could result in a poorer grade of results, and that a higher initial outlay would reap increased benefits in terms of the finished project being of a better quality. Stanley explained that the project would look to gain from any work underway or already completed to gain as much benefit as possible with a minimal cost to the programme, thereby maximising the benefit for the associated cost.

A strong note of caution was sounded by Jon Davis (Australia) as he was aware of similar projects in the USA taking 12 months to obtain results at a cost of $1million. The difficulties in acquiring proprietary information could be prohibitive and at the costs involved in our studies, a worthwhile job would be difficult to achieve. The members for OPEC also expressed concern over the fact that the study was primarily looking at China, as China is now a net importer of coal and prices are going to rise, and there will be a significant knock on effect of these price rises. China is already reviewing plans and it is possible that proposed projects within China may not come on stream. There is also a big impact on the type of coal in terms of its rank, and moisture content.

At this point John Topper explained that the IEA CCC were conducting some similar work on CTL technologies, and that in order to allay some of the concerns over the ease of access to data and the

9

economic feasibility of the project, it may be better for the Programme Team to liaise with the IEA CCC staff to minimise the costs involved and attempt to constrain the scope of the study and re-present it at the next meeting.

Kelly Thambimuthu sumised the study should not be approved at this point, but the Programme Team should reassess the project and if appropriate bring it back for reconsideration at the next ExCo meeting.


What Have We Learnt To Date?Document GHG/08/15 refers. Brendan Beck described the proposed study.

This proposal was very popular amongst the members, and Jay Braitsch (USA) started by saying that it was a very high value piece of work, and that IEA GHG were ideally placed to carry it out. The proposal is below average on financial terms as the programme team are proposing to carry out the work in house, without involving external contractors. The programme is placed very well for such a task as the continuity gained from past and present work will form a good basis for a thorough assessment.

Arthur Lee (Chevron) confirmed that the programme team are ideally placed for such a review, and asked what format the outputs would take. The members discussed this at length, and it was thought that some type of written report coupled with a series of updates to our databases would be most favourable. There was also a suggestion to stage the work, looking at the entirety of reports available from the work carried out by IEA GHG, and compile an associated knowledge map, and then to commence the second stage which would involve going out to other companies and filling in from their data and reports.

Erik Lysen (The Netherlands) advised that the emphasis should cover future planned projects as well as those underway already, and also projects that have been cancelled; taking note of the reasons behind the cancellations. John Gale pointed out that although this would be beneficial, the information from cancelled projects may not be readily available. Nick Otter (Alstom) supported the comments made and suggested that the work would be useful to those involved in the CSLF arena looking at the technology road map. He asked what time frame the programme team were looking at to complete the work and John Gale confirmed that we would begin straight away, and we could have an early piece of work with less information quite quickly, but Nick Otter suggested a 6 month timescale would allow more detail and still be a timely piece of work.

It was mentioned that this kind of work would need continual updating to remain a relevant report, and it was suggested that it may serve a better purpose as a web based database, and that way it would remain a simple task to update it at regular intervals. Rachel Crisp (UK) cautioned against the inclusion of all proposed projects as there is a lot of noise in the industry about projects that are unlikely to ever be realised, and that the study would have to address a firm definition of capture ready to determine project suitability.

The second note of caution was sounded by Jay Braitsch (USA) and he said that the discussion covered a lot of staffing time, with maybe as many as 200 technical papers to read and analyse. John Gale said the work would look to link in with the US Regional Partnerships, and also the work underway with CO2REMOVE which has a budget for such activity.

Kelly Thambimuthu concluded that the study had been unanimously agreed to by the members.

Corrosion and Selection of Materials for CCSDocument GHG/08/16 refers, Mike Haines described the proposed study.

Lars Stromberg (Vattenfall) questioned whether the study aimed to cover all materials covered by the entire process of CCS as this would entail a huge quantity of work. Vattenfall are carrying out pilot and demonstration projects to try and learn more about the issues involved which could be useful, but

10

it may be best to constrain the project to the materials used in the compression and transport elements of the chain. Mike Haines confirmed that the study would constrain itself to the elements of the process which are subjected to changes due to the capture process. Tim Hill (E.ON UK) suggested that the report could look at defining a set of knowledge gaps which would be extremely useful, and E.ON may be in a position to assist with this aspect of the work.

Arthur Lee (Chevron) felt that the study is not necessary at the present as industry is already doing the relevant work to perfect their processes and activities. He went on to say that the real benefit would be in communicating the results to the public rather than to recommend materials criteria or try to develop standards. This was contradicted by Markus Wolf (Alstom) as he felt the limitations need clarifying. Luc de Marliave and Cal Cooper (TOTAL SA and Conoco Phillips) felt that oil/gas industry engineers and scientists are breaking the new ground on this topic, and Mike Haines agreed that a key part of the study would be to gather knowledge from those working in the areas, and compile a report with this basis.

Kelly Thambimuthu suggested that the study be agreed by the members, and the study proceeds as outlined at the meeting and taking into consideration the comments made by the members.

Analogues for CO2 StorageDocument GHG/08/17 refers. John Gale described this study proposal.

Kelly Thambimuthu observed that it would be both necessary and important to include NGO’s in the review process described in the study, which was agreed by John Gale. Luc de Marliave (TOTAL) thought that this is a very important piece of work, and that tools for communication are vital in providing information to the public, especially to explain that CCS is not dissimilar to natural gas storage. Members expressed the opinion that the work must be seen as unbiased to hold value, and a neutral tone must be adopted to avoid the situation where it appears the report is defending a position in the field rather that providing information on the subject. John Gale confirmed that the tone and focus would be adjusted to address rather than build public confidence on the subject.

Rachel Crisp (UK) suggested the study looks at areas where safe containment has been proved, not just examples of analogues that leak as this will be used by policymakers to determine the safety of CCS as well as providing a source of information to the general public. Michael Madsen (Denmark) suggested that the study also explains the properties of CO2 to a non-technical audience and it was agreed that the study would look into including this aspect.

Other Suggested StudiesA query arose from Rachel Crisp (UK) about one of the studies that did not have enough votes to be presented at the meeting, proposal 33-13: The Effects of CCS on the CDM Market, and asked whether there was a possibility of looking at this study again as the study is subject to certain time critical elements and thus it would be extremely beneficial. John Gale said that although a detailed presentation had not been prepared, Tim Dixon had some comments on this topic in a later paper that could be discussed, and as we have dropped one proposed study, we have the capacity to bring this study forward.

The Effects of CCS on the CDM MarketDocument GHG/08/23 refers. Tim Dixon presented the report, and described the elements of the study now being evaluated by members.

Kelly Thambimuthu asked what completion date we would be aiming at if the members approved proceeding with the study, and Tim Dixon suggested that we would aim for a deadline of December for the COP/MOP 4 meeting.

Kelly Thambimuthu summarised members opinions of this study by confirming it was agreed pending a proposal was drawn up by the programme team and circulated to the members within 3 weeks of the meeting for comment.

11

Action 14: General Manager.

11. MEMBERS IDEAS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

John Gale will invite members after the meeting by e-mail to submit their ideas on future studies Action 15: General Manager.

12. RESEARCH NETWORKSFuture development of the Oxy-Combustion network Document GHG/08/18 refers, and Stanley Santos presented this update on the activities of the network.

The network had become extremely popular, the most recent meeting was fully subscribed within a week of opening registration The popularity of the network, meant it was necessary to hold parallel sessions to meet the needs of all interested parties but we were still turning people away. For the next meeting he highlighted the need to expand the network into a mini-conference series. Concerns were raised by Dick Rhuddy (EPRI) over the enhanced management needs of such a change, but many of the members who actively take part in the networks assured those with concerns that the networks effectively manage themselves, with a steering committee made up of network members and costs are also covered by registration fees and sponsorship.

Lars Stromberg (Vattenfall) congratulated the programme and specifically Stanley Santos on the success of the network, and this was mirrored by many members. Vattenfall will consider hosting the first mini conference next year, which should coincide with 1 year of operation of their pilot plant.

Kelly Thambimuthu sumised that members agreed that the network would convert into a mini-conference series.


13. PRACTICAL INITATIVESIn the interests of time this item was dropped from the Agenda. John indicated that there were presentations available in the member’s folder and if members had any questions the programme team would be happy to answer them

14. EU CCS DIRECTIVE AND EU ETSDocument GHG/08/22 and 23 refer. Tim Dixon gave an overview of the EU CCS Directive and ETS.

Members expressed their thanks for a comprehensive overview of the directive, as it gives a valuable insight into the future of CCS within Europe. John Wilkinson (Exxon Mobil) asked whether the programme had any active links with the CO2REMOVE project, and John Gale confirmed that we were involved in Task 2 which addresses regulatory guidance.

Richard Rhudy (EPRI) requested a draft of the directive be made available to members, and Tim Dixon confirmed that the directive is available on the EC website and that members would be provided with the link to the web site.


The COORETEC project was also mentioned which is now available in an English language version which will also be circulated to the ExCo members at the forum to be held after the ExCo meeting.


Document GHG/08/24 refers. Tim Dixon gave an overview of the recent CSLF meeting held in South Africa with input from Rachel Crisp (UK). The new arrangement with IEA GHG is welcomed. The main CSLF outcomes were that Dynamis is recognised as a CSLF project, the next CSLF meeting will be Ministerial, the CSLF will send a letter to UNFCCC in support of CCS in the CDM, a new Task

12

Force will be created on Communications, new databases will be created on market incentives and demonstration projects, and endorsement of the IEA/CSLF Calgary recommendations to G8.

Bill Reynen mentioned that the CSLF is now 5 years old, and as such is half way through their 10 year mandate. At this juncture, they are looking to review the progress made, review the strategy for the following 5 years and to look at any changes necessary.

15. IEA MATTERS OF INTEREST AND G8 RECCOMENDATIONS

No representative of the IEA was present, and no paper was tabled by the IEA secretariat.

On the recommendations to the G8, Bill Reynen commented that 3 workshops had been held by IEA/CSLF to develop recommendations on CCS to take forward to the G8 meeting to be held in Japan this year. The recommendations based on a consensus from 60 organisations that had attended the series of Near Term Opportunities workshops were then to be developed by the IEA into briefing document to be presented to the next G8 meeting. The status of the recommendations document from the IEA was uncertain. In the absence of the IEA recommendations, the CSLF policy group had decided to forward the recommendations from the Near Term Opportunity workshops directly to the G8. Kelly Thambimuthu suggested that the members contact their IEA CERT representatives as a means of providing feed back to the document being developed by the IEA for presentation to the G8 leaders at the summit to be held in Japan.

16. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

Documents GHG/08/25-27 refers. John Gale presented the financial reports for the preceding year, and summarised by saying that finances were looking healthy, and the programme should not require any draw down of funds this year. Despite increased staffing costs and a trend in increases in study costs, savings made elsewhere negate the effects of these rises, and the cost increases have been included in the budgetary planning for the following year.

Robert Whitney (New Zealand) queried whether print and postage costs could be reduced by emailing PDF’s of reports to member countries for local printing and distribution. John Gale agreed that the point was worth investigating.

Action 19: General Manager Members approved the budget for 2008.

It was agreed at the 32nd ExCo meeting in Korea that future operating phases of the programme be realigned with that established by the IEA for this implementing agreement. John Gale proposed that phase 5 which is due to end in November 2009 be extended by two years to end in November 2011, in line with the IEA Implementing Agreement Phases. Any members who have difficulties with the two year extension in terms of their own internal approvals and processes should discuss this with John Gale.

Action 20: Members/General Manager

17. DATES OF NEXT MEETINGs

Document GHG/08/28 refers. The 34th ExCo will be held in Washington D.C. prior to the GHGT 9 conference on the 14th and 15th of November 2008. It will be held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, which is the same venue for GHGT 9.

The 35th meeting is confirmed as occurring in the week commencing the 20th of April 2009, and will be held in Brisbane, Australia and hosted by the Australian Consortium to the IEA Greenhouse Program.

The 36th meeting will be hosted by Switzerland/Alstom in Zurich or Berne in the autumn 2009.

Subsequent to the meeting, Spain confirmed its interest in hosting the 37th meeting in spring 2010.

13

The Netherlands will confirm their interest in hosting the 38 th meeting in Amsterdam adjacent to the GHGT-10 conference in the autumn of 2010.

The 39th meeting is provisionally held for Norway to host in Bergen in spring 2011.

15. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Jon Davis (Australia) reported on the launch of the Otway project in Australia. It took place recently during a category 3 cyclone with winds of up to 130kph, and injection has commenced. Bill Reynen (Canada) reported that a video of the project was presented at the CSLF meeting and was very well received; it is available on the CSLF website.

Kelly Thambimuthu thanked Germany for hosting the meeting, which he commended as being organised with great style, was very successful and was also the largest ExCo held to date. He then declared the meeting closed.

14

Appendix 1

Letter from CEPAC/BRAZIL

i

15 April 2008Dr. John GaleIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeThe Orchard Business CentreStoke Orchard - CheltenhamGloucestershire, UK -GL52 7RZ

Dear Dr. Gale,

This letter is to officially demonstrate our interest to join the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme as a contracting party representing Brazil. The CEPAC (Carbon Storage Research Center), is a center based on the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, one of the largest universities in Brazil. CEPAC is an interdisciplinary center for research, development, innovation, demonstration and deployment of technologies on carbon capture and storage for climate change mitigation and energy production.

CEPAC activities are focused on characterization of reservoirs aimed for CO2 storage, numerical and experimental work on the reservoir and seal integrity, mineral and industrial waste carbonation, unconventional forms of energy productions related to CO2 storage, such as ECBM, EOR and UCG with CCS, in addition to analysis of potentiality, risk, capacity, durability and profitability of CO2 geological storage activities, associated or not to energy production (oil, gas and hydrogen). Among the objectives of CEPAC are:

1. Implementation of R&D CCS projects in Brazil;2. Implementation of pilot and demonstration projects for CO2 storage and energy production in

Brazil;3. Preparation and training of human resources to supply national demands on R&D.4. Supply specific demands for the increase in oil recovery, as well as other fuels (gas and

hydrogen);5. Contribute in the life quality improvement by means of sustainable fossil fuel exploitation.

The current structure spans 1100 m2, holding several research laboratories (Supercritical Carbonation Laboratory; Geochemistry and Petrology Laboratory; Numerical Modeling Laboratory; Coal Analysis Laboratory; Wellbore Integrity Laboratory), with ca. 55 professionals from diverse areas, mainly geologists, geographers, chemists and engineers, and undergraduate and graduate students.

Research funds for CEPAC activities are fundamentally supported by PETROBRAS, so IEA GHG membership will depend on external funds. We are expecting to raise funds to cover IEA GHG membership in a short period of time. We look forward to contribute to IEA GHG Programme as an active contracting party representing Brazil.

Sincerely yours,

Marcelo KetzerHead coordinatorCEPAC, Carbon Storage Research CenterPUCRS – Av. Ipiranga 6681, Predio 96J TecnoPuc90619-900 Porto Alegre, Brazil

ii