What have we learnt from large scale CCS projects?
26
www.ieagreen.org.uk What have we learnt from large scale CCS What have we learnt from large scale CCS projects? projects? John Gale General Manager IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme ESF-FWF Conference CO 2 Geological Storage: latest progress, Universitätszentrum Obergurgl, Austria 22-27 nd November 2009
Transcript of What have we learnt from large scale CCS projects?
www.ieagreen.org.uk
What have we learnt from large scale CCS What have we learnt from large scale CCS projects?projects?John Gale
General Manager IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
ESF-FWF ConferenceCO2 Geological Storage: latest progress, Universitätszentrum Obergurgl, Austria
22-27nd November 2009
www.ieagreen.org.uk
IntroductionIntroduction• What is IEA GHG and what we do• Discuss recent work IEA GHG has undertaken
on summarising learning from existing large scale projects
www.ieagreen.org.uk
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme• A collaborative research programme founded in 1991• Aim: Provide members with informed information on the
role that technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Produce information that is:Objective, trustworthy, independentPolicy relevant but NOT policy prescriptiveScientifically reviewed by external Expert ReviewersSubject to review of policy implications by Members
• Funding approx £2.5 million/year
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Contracting Parties and SponsorsContracting Parties and Sponsors
www.ieagreen.org.uk
What have we learnt studyWhat have we learnt study• Internal IEA GHG study activity started in 2009• ‘Large scale’ CCS projects identified according to agreed
criteria • Questionnaires sent to operators• Results analysed for key learning points for capture,
transport and storage elements• Report completed• Starting second phase of in-depth analysis of key issues• Activity to be repeated in 2 year cycles• Results feeding into GCCSI acttivies
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Criteria for largeCriteria for large--scale operational projectsscale operational projects
• Indicative criteria defined for ‘large-scale operational projects’• Was, or had been, operational by the end of 2008, and either:-
• Captured over 10,000 tCO2 per year from a flue gas• Injected over 10,000 tCO2 per year with the purpose of geological
storage with monitoring• Captured over 100,000 tCO2 per year from any source• Coal-bed storage of over 10,000 tCO2 per year
• Commercial CO2-EOR was excluded unless there was a monitoring programme to provide learning
• Did not need to be fully integrated• Added term ‘large-scale operational’ to IEA GHG Projects Database
• www.co2captureandstorage.info
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Bellingham Cogeneration Facility
IFFCO CO2 Recovery Plant –Aonla
CASTOR Project Prosint Methanol PlantGreat Plains Synfuel Plant Rangely CO2 ProjectIMC Global Soda Plant Schwarze PumpeIn Salah SECARB - Cranfield IIK12-B Shady Point Power PlantKetzin Project SleipnerMRCSP - Michigan Basin Snohvit LNG ProjectNagaoka SRCSP - Aneth EOR-Paradox BasinOtway Basin Project SRCSP - San Juan BasinPembina Cardium Project Sumitomo Chemicals PlantPetronas Fertilizer Plant Warrior Run Power PlantIFFCO CO2 Recovery Plant -Phulpur WeyburnChemical Co. “A” CO2 Recovery Plant Zama EOR Project
Bellingham Cogeneration Facility
IFFCO CO2 Recovery Plant –Aonla
CASTOR Project Prosint Methanol PlantGreat Plains Synfuel Plant Rangely CO2 ProjectIMC Global Soda Plant Schwarze PumpeIn Salah SECARB - Cranfield IIK12-B Shady Point Power PlantKetzin Project SleipnerMRCSP - Michigan Basin Snohvit LNG ProjectNagaoka SRCSP - Aneth EOR-Paradox BasinOtway Basin Project SRCSP - San Juan BasinPembina Cardium Project Sumitomo Chemicals PlantPetronas Fertilizer Plant Warrior Run Power PlantIFFCO CO2 Recovery Plant -Phulpur WeyburnChemical Co. “A” CO2 Recovery Plant Zama EOR Project
Projects identifiedProjects identified
Capture over 100ktCO2
Injection over 10ktCO2 for storage
Monitored EOR over 10ktCO2
Capture over 10ktCO2 from flue gas
Coal bed storage over 10ktCO2
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Project LocationsProject Locations
Capture over 100ktCO2
Injection over 10ktCO2 for storage
Monitored EOR over 10ktCO2
Capture over 10ktCO2 from flue gas
Coal bed storage over 10ktCO2
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Extent of coverage Extent of coverage vsvs ZEP project matrix ZEP project matrix
Demonstrated in operational large projects
Not demonstrated in operational large projects
Project matrix courtesy of EU Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants - ZEP (2008)
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Extent of CoverageExtent of Coverage• If integrated CCS from electricity
production is a 4 link chain:• Electricity production• Capture• Transport• Storage
• 2 and 3 link chains have been demonstrated over 1Mt CO2 per year
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Extent of coverage Extent of coverage -- CaptureCapture• 13 plants capturing from combustion processes
• 11 post-combustion• 1 pre-combustion• 1 oxyfuel
• 9 projects source CO2 from industrial processing (Natural gas separation, ammonia, LNG, hydrogen production)
• Multiple fuels represented• Hard coal• Lignite• Natural Gas• Industrial processes
• Over 10Mt of CO2 captured per year
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Extent of coverage Extent of coverage -- TransportTransport
• Pipeline• Single sink source pipelines• Multiple source-multiple sink pipeline networks
• Truck• Cross-border transport• Transport over 860km
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Capture and Transport Technical StatusCapture and Transport Technical Status
Snohvit160km Sub sea
pipeline
Weyburn 300km transboundary
pipeline
Pipeline network to capture and supply 1.2Mt/y CO2 by 2010
Permian Basin, 3000km pipeline network operating
since mid 80’s
Long distance transport of CO2 by pipeline is established technology
Long distance transport of CO2 by pipeline is established technology
www.ieagreen.org.uk
CaptureCapture
• Amine scrubbing demonstrated at 1Mt/year scale on natural gas plants• No significant operational problems reported
• No demonstrations on power plants yet• Not in a position to decide which is best capture
options• All three options still on the table• Allowed impurity levels will define costs
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Technical ChallengesTechnical Challenges• Post combustion capture on flue gas
• Large number of pilot plants in operation• A lot of commercial activity• Technology not yet demonstrated at scale
• Pre combustion capture• Technology components available but whole process
integration could be a challenge• Hydrogen turbine not commercially available?
• Oxy fuel combustion• Pilot scale tests needed to build confidence in this option.
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Largest COLargest CO22 Storage ProjectsStorage Projects
Sleipnercapturing and injecting 1Mt/y CO2 since 1996
Weyburncapturing and
injecting 1.6 Mt/y CO2 since 2000 In-Salah capturing and injecting
0.8 Mt/y CO2 since 2004
Snohvit capturing and injecting 0.7Mt/y
CO2 since 2008
Rangeley injecting
0.8 Mt/y CO2since 1980’s
Total Anthropogenic CO2 captured and injected
currently 5 Mt/y
Total Anthropogenic CO2 captured and injected
currently 5 Mt/y
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Net CONet CO22 Storage per YearStorage per Year
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Porosity Range of large Injection Projects Porosity Range of large Injection Projects Sleipner
Snohvit WeyburnRangeley
In-Salah
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Reservoir DepthsReservoir Depths
Sleipner
Snohvit
In-SalahWeyburn
Rangeley
www.ieagreen.org.uk
SummarySummary• CO2 has been injected into:
• Unconsolidated sand bodies offshore (Sleipner)• Both tight sandstone and carbonate reservoirs
on shore (In-Salah & Weyburn)• Depths ranging from 800 to >3000m
• Some injection problems identified• No insurmountable problems
• Injection wells• Single well - Sleipner• Multiple distributed wells - Weyburn
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Extent of coverage Extent of coverage –– MonitoringMonitoring• 2D seismic• 3D seismic• 4D seismic• Vertical seismic profiling• Cross-well seismic• Electrical conductivity• Microseismic• Passive seismic• Soil gas sampling• Detector arrays• Eddy covariance
• Observation wells• Time lapse microgravity• Well temperature and
pressure• Well logs• Tracers• Ground water geochemistry• Interferometry• Satellite imaging• Tilt meters
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Monitoring ExperienceMonitoring Experience• No firm evidence from any of the large scale
projects that leakage is occurring• Weyburn (~7years), Sleipner (~13 years), Rangeley
(~25 years)• Only one project has identified any surface seepage –
Rangeley• Most recent results indicate CO2 at surface is
biologically converted from CH4 microseepage• Monitoring lifetimes are short <25 years• Cannot quantify injection volumes or seepage
rates at present
www.ieagreen.org.uk
LeakageLeakage• Natural analogues have been used to study
environmental impacts of leakage along faults
The impact of the gas is limited. Schools of fish swim around the gas plume Panarea, Italy. Prof Lombardi. URS
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
500
1000
1500
CO
2 flu
x (g
m-2
d-1
)
CO2 flux - leakage only at permeable points along faults
Latera caldera
Prof Lombardi. URS
www.ieagreen.org.uk
ConclusionsConclusions• CO2 has been injected into:
• Unconsolidated sand bodies offshore (Sleipner)• Both tight sandstone and carbonate reservoirs
on shore (In-Salah & Weyburn)• Depths ranging from 800 to >3000m
• Some injection problems identified• No insurmountable problems
• Injection wells• Single well - Sleipner• Multiple distributed wells - Weyburn
www.ieagreen.org.uk
SummarySummary• Have an extensive database of
information from existing projects• PC Capture demonstrated at 1
Mt/y scale on natural gas refining plants
• Long distance pipeline transport demonstrated
• Portfolio of storage projects• Storage demonstrated at 1 Mt/y
scale in wide range of geological reservoirs
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Thank You!Thank You!Happy to take any questions!
GHGT-1019th-23rd September 2010,
Amsterdam, The NetherlandsCall for Papers Open
www.ghgt.info
