futuregen board presentation180.235.241.158/news/events/pdf/izec2009-kenneth.pdf– prior to value...

FutureGen Alliance Confidential Information

FutureGenA Global Leadership Project

November 19, 2009

1


FutureGen

Commercial-scale, Leading Edge

• 275-Mwe (nominal) IGCC Power Plant

• >1 million metric tons/year CO2captured

• Storage in deep saline geologic formation

• Near-zero NOx, SOx, and PM emissions• Advanced technology design to prove integrated operations and lead

the way to affordable, low-carbon coal power• Design and architecture is compatible with community and will be a

prototype for ease of siting• Stakeholder involvement to build technology support

2


FutureGen

The Global Leadership Project

• Government drivers:

– Need a bold technology response to climate change and energy concerns

– Need to broadly engage industry and governments on a global basis to position for subsequent commercial deployment of the technology globally

– Need to validate the cost and performance of an IGCC-based coal-fueled power plant with near-zero emissions, including carbon capture and sequestration in a saline formation

• FutureGen addresses these needs

“FutureGen reflects [the Obama] Administration's commitment to rapidly developing carbon capture and sequestration technology”

Secretary of Energy ChuJune 12, 2009

“FutureGen reflects [the Obama] Administration's commitment to rapidly developing carbon capture and sequestration technology”

Secretary of Energy ChuJune 12, 2009

3

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Steven_Chu_official_DOE_portrait.jpg


FutureGen

Value Proposition for Industrial Members

• Increase recognition as global leader– With shareholders, viewed as responsive to financial and environmental

concerns related to climate change– With governments, viewed as supportive of government efforts to advance

climate/energy technology and collaborate internationally– With the public, perceived as being focused on climate solutions

• Strengthen corporate knowledge of IGCC and CCS technologies– Access to technical details of the engineering design effort – Ability to gain operational experience with the plant– Opportunity to network with the decision makers of member companies and

second employees to the project

• Strategically preserve coal production and coal trading markets, as well as ensure a diversified utility fuel supply

4


Status

Years Ahead of “Comparable” Projects

• Status– $50 million of technical work completed– Completed site selection process– Completed legal framework to manage CO2 injection liability issues– Completed Environmental Impact Statement – Completed Conceptual design and cost estimate– Nearly complete Preliminary design and cost estimate– Highly supportive local and State community– $1.1 billion in Department of Energy cash

5


Project Structure

Industrial Members Manage the Project

InternationalIndustrial

Participation

• Non-profit consortium of coal production companies, coal trading companies, and coal-fueled utilities

6

http://www.eon-us.com/


Project Structure

Project Organizational Structure

InternationalGovernmentParticipation

Cooperative

Agreement(s) InternationalIndustrial

Participation

ProjectManagement

Steering

Group

TechnologySuppliers

EngineeringFirms

ResearchInstitutions

Other Businesses

7


Schedule

FutureGen is Ahead and Accelerating

2009Obama Administrationrenews DOE support

(sets aside $1.1B)

Jan. 2010Readiness assessment to proceed to

final design, equipment procurement, &site preparation

Early 2011Full Construction

Start

2014On-line

Mid-2009EIS Record of Decision

Mid-2007DOE withdraws

support

Mid-2007 to 2009Industry and

Illinois maintain support without

DOE

DOE – Allianceform partnership

8


Site Selection

Proposed Sites

12 Sites in 7 States

C. Davidson 20069


Site RFP

Qualifying Criteria

Geologic Storage

Site Characteristics• Surface Access• Mineral Rights• Water Rights

Subsurface Water • Not drinking standard• Protect for future use

Formation• Depth• Primary Seal• Saline• Stimulation

Capacity• Test / Post-test• Injection rate capable

Proximity to Sensitive Areas• Lakes / Shorelines• Transmissive Faults• Sensitive Features

Permitability

Power Plant

Physical• Location• Size• Control• Seismicity• Flood Plain

Other Site• Existing site hazards• Existing use

Proximity to Sensitive Areas• Airspace• Threatened species• Cultural• Public Access• Class I visibility

Water• Access• Adequacy

Fuel Supply

10


Site Selection

Scoring Criteria

Power Plant - Site

Physical Characteristics• Size• Topography• Elevation• Flood Plain• Wetland

Other Site Characteristics• Road Access• Proximity to target formation• Critical habitats• Cultural resources• Public sccess areas

Exposure to Hazards• Hurricane• Tornado

Regulatory and Permitting

Power Plant - Const & Ops

Water• Distance• Adequacy

Transmission• Grid proximity• Voltage• Rights of way

Other Site Characteristics• Rail/Barge access• Delivery mode flexibility• Access to gas

Workforce• Constructions• Operations• Construction cost

Geologic Storage

Geologic Characteristics• Target Formations• Orientation• Permeability• Capacity

Seals• Faults• Capillary Entry Pressure• Fracture Gradient• Injection Well Penetrations• Secondary Seals

MMV• Physical Access• Legal Access• Subsurface Access

11 11


Site Selection

Scoring Criteria

3.0 Power Plant

SiteCharacteristics

Construction &Operations

3.1 PhysicalCharacterisitcs

3.3 Proximity toSensitive Areas

3.4 Exposure toNatural Hazards

3.2 Other SiteCharacteristics

3.1.1Size

3.6 Water(Cooling)

3.7Transmission

3.8 Materialand FuelDelivery

3.2.1Road

Access

3.2.2Proximityto Target.Forma-tion(s)

3.3.2 TES& CriticalHabitat

3.3.3Cultural

Resources

3.3.4PublicAccessAreas

3.3.5 Non-Attainment

/ Maint.Areas

3.3.1Class I

VisibilityAreas

3.6.1Distance

3.6.2Adequacy

3.7.1 GridProximity

3.7.2Voltage

3.8.3Access to

NaturalGas

3.8.2DeliveryMode

Flexibility

3.8.1 Rail/Barge

Access

3.5.1SEPA

3.1.3Ele-

vation

3.7.3Rights-of-way

3.9Availability of

Workforce

3.9.3Construc-tion Cost

3.9.2Opera-tionalLaor

3.9.1Construc-tion Labor

FutureGen Siting Scoring Criteria

3.1.2Topo-graphy

3.2.5Existing

Land Use

3.2.3Dis-

persion

3.2.4 AirQuality

3.4.1Hurricane

3.4.2Tornado

3.1.4Flood-plain

3.5 Regulatory& Permitting

3.1.5Wetlands

4.0 Geologic Storage

Security

4.1 FormationProperties

4.1.2Orien-tation

4.1.4Capacity

4.2.1Faults

4.2.2Capillary

EntryPressure

4.2.4Injection

WellPenetra-

tions

4.2.5Other

Penetra-tions

4.2.3FractureGradient

4.3.1PhysicalAccess

4.1.1TargetForma-tion(s)

GeologicCharacteristics

4.1.5Size

4.1.3 Per-meability

4.2 Seals4.3 Monitoring,Measurement &

Verification

4.2.6Secondary

Seals

4.3.3Subsurface

Access

4.3.2Legal

Access

29 Surface Criteria 14 Subsurface Criteria

12


Technical Aspects

Mattoon Site – Excellent Infrastructure

13


Technical Aspects

Mattoon Site – Storage Rights Addressed

14


Technical Aspects

Saline Formation is Globally Abundant

Thick, homogeneous sandstone

Concentrated Plume Quality Injection Well Design15


Technical Aspects

Subsurface Research MM&V “Laboratory”

16


Accomplishments

FutureGen Years Ahead• Final site selected

– World’s first structure siting protocol published

– Local community and state community support is very strong

• FutureGen Environmental Impact Statement Complete– ~2000-page assessment, which

concluded that Mattoon site is environmentally acceptable

– Average DOE coal plant project EIS requires 33- to 36-months, which puts FutureGen far ahead of other recently initiated projects

17


Technical Aspects

Facility: Advanced Backbone + R&D

Air

User Test Facility

Advanced Gas Clean-Up

SyngasSyngas CO2

Advanced CO2 separation

O2 SyngasSyngas H2CO2Coal

Air

Slag

AirSeparation

UnitGasification Gas Clean-Up

CO2Separation

ElectricityGeneration

CO2Sequestration &

Monitoring

Electricity Generation Backbone with CO2 Sequestration/Monitoring System

Advanced Oxygen

Separation

Other Technologies

Electricity,H2, or

other Products

Advanced Coal

Conversion

POWER

Current Focus

State-of-the-ArtGasificationTechnology

With

Saline Carbon Storage

Future ResearchUser Facility *

* Contingent on additional contributions and ultimate facility ownership issues18


Accomplishments

FutureGen Years Ahead

• 50-person engineering team established– Conceptual design complete– Preliminary design nearing completion– Major equipment Requests for Information (RFI) complete– Gasification island RFP issued– Other key equipment RFPs drafted and pending release– Underground Injection Control permit (UIC) submitted– Air permit in progress

19


Accomplishments

FutureGen Years Ahead

• Cost estimating – 2008 capital and operating estimate complete (peak of market)

– Bottoms-up estimate– 380 equipment quotes + factoring– Dozens of binders of documentation

– 2009 refined capital and operating estimate in progress– Prior to value engineering and other refinements expectations for the

project’s costs are approximately:

2010$ As-Spent

Capital 1.7 1.9Operating (4 yrs ops + 2 yrs monitoring)

0.4 0.5

Total $2.1B $2.4B

20


Current Activities

Accelerating the Pace of Progress

• Work focus through Spring– Continue design and permitting activities– Finalize funding strategy

– Capital strategy– Power purchase framework

– Expand industrial participation– Letters of Intent

Non-DOE (Industry and State of Illinois)

21


FutureGen Difference

Years ahead

• Years ahead of “comparable” projects– Completed site selection process– Completed legal framework to manage CO2 injection liability issues– Completed Environmental Impact Statement – Completed Conceptual design and cost estimate– Fully functional engineering team– Nearly complete Preliminary design and cost estimate– Highly supportive local and State community– Motivated existing Alliance members

FutureGen is years ahead and will provide the learnings to accelerate other CCS projects

22



Technical Differences

Funded & proceeding

Adv. design & waiting approval

Proposed

Legend

Saline-Sedimentary Formations

Sto

rage

For

mat

ion

Abu

ndan

ce

United StatesFG) FutureGen2) Hydrogen Energy 3) Taylorville Hybrid 4) Mississippi Power5) Various6) Duke

Foreign7) ZeroGen (AU)8) GreenGen (CN)9) RWE (DE)10) EPCOR (CA)11) Various (EU)

90% Saline Bit90% EOR Coke/coal

~50% Saline Bit50% EOR Lignite

~60% EOR Various0–18% TBD Bit

~60% TBD Bitslip-stream TBD Coal

~60% Saline Lignite85% EOR Coal

0-90% Offshore

Saline-Basalt FormationsDepleted Gas ReserviorsCoal SeamsEnhanced Oil Recovery

% Capture

23



Technical Differences

10

Funded & proceeding

Adv. design & waiting approval

Proposed

LegendFG

2

3

5

9

68

4

7

Sto

rage

For

mat

ion

Abu

ndan

ce

United StatesFG) FutureGen2) Hydrogen Energy 3) Taylorville Hybrid 4) Mississippi Power5) Various6) Duke

Foreign7) ZeroGen (AU)8) GreenGen (CN)9) RWE (DE)10) EPCOR (CA)11) Various (EU)

90% Saline Bit90% EOR Coke/coal

~50% Saline Bit50% EOR Lignite

~60% EOR Various0–18% TBD Bit

~60% TBD Bitslip-stream TBD Coal

~60% Saline Lignite85% EOR Coal

0-90% Offshore

% Capture

24



Structural Differences

FutureGen atMattoon

TypicalDemonstration

BusinessStructure

Non-Profit For-Profit

Information Sharing High Low

International Participation High Low -> Med

Opportunity forDirected R&D

Medium Low

User Access High Low

25



Additional Possibilities

• Contingent upon long-term ownership strategy, which is driven by members and future federal funding, FutureGen provides a test bed for long-term R&D possibilities:– Long-term CO2 injection– Advanced CO2 monitoring and verification systems– Biomass co-firing – Advanced gasifier designs– Membrane technologies (e.g. ITM) for O2 designs and gas clean up– H2 turbine combustor and blade upgrades– Fuel cell/turbine integration studies– Advanced gas clean-up systems

If not at FutureGen, then where and when canthese advancements be achieved?

26


Funding Strategy

U.S. Government Commitment

The U.S. Department of Energy has $1.073 billion cash-in-hand

for the project

“FutureGen reflects this Administration's commitment to rapidly developing carbon capture and sequestration technology”

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy

“FutureGen is a priority”President Obama

“We [DOE] are fully committed and moving without hesitation.” “We are going to get this done.”

Dr. James Markowsky, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy

“The FutureGen project has great potential to be a flagship project in using coal in a way that reduces carbon in the atmosphere”

Dr. Kristina Johnson, Under Secretary of Energy

27


Domo Arigato Gozaimashita !

28


Contact Information:

Michael J. MuddChief Executive OfficerFutureGen Industrial [email protected]

Ken HumphreysManaging DirectorFutureGen Industrial [email protected] 521-7784

29

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

futuregen board presentation180.235.241.158/news/events/pdf/izec2009-kenneth.pdf– prior to value...

Documents