Carbon Capture and Storage Potentials and Barriers to Deployment

PRESENTATION STRUCTURE (1) Overview - What is Carbon Capture and Storage? - Do we need it? (2) Potentials, risks and barriers: Global (3) Case study: Malaysia (4) Conclusions

Key questions What is the current status of CCS technology? What is the global potential of CCS as a climate change mitigation tool? What are the barriers to CCS? How do potentials for and barriers to CCS differ in different countries?

Source: IPCC 2005 Capture Transport Storage What is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)? Overview

Why do we need CCS? Climate change is real Fossil fuels likely to be main source of fuel in the near future Large GHG mitigation potential All options are needed BUT need to be one in a portfolio of options Overview

Source: IPCC (2007) CCS has large mitigation potential ppm 650 ppm Overview

Options for capture Power plants  Post-combustion, Pre-combustion, Oxyfuel Industrial  ammonia, gas refineries CCS: CO2 Capture Source: Total

CO 2 Pipeline Transport Experience Mainly for EOR- pure CO 2 Long distances, large volumes- cheap and fast Low population density areas CO 2 Transport from Capture Different impurities and gas composition- capture process dependent  Different pipeline designs necessary  Has to be dry to avoid corrosion Undersea pipelines for CO 2 CCS: CO 2 Transport

Main geological storage formations Source: IPCC (2005) CCS: CO 2 Storage

Trapping mechanisms Physical trapping under impermeable layer Solubility trapping Mineral trapping  Long term (thousands of years) Source: CO2CRC CCS: CO 2 Storage CO 2 trapped as supercritical fluid in tiny pore spaces

Source: IPCC (2005) Estimated global capacity CCS: CO 2 Storage Global capacity estimate: 200 GtCO 2 to 2000 GtCO 2

Source: IPCC (2005) CCS projects CCS Technology: Current projects

Mainly from capture processes  Fuel prices  Commodity prices (e.g. steel) New built or retrofit? Distance and mass flow rate Scale CCS cost factors Risks and barriers:Global

Source: McKinsey (2009)

CCS involves risks and obstacles RISKS Environment and ecosystems Human health and safety Climate risks OBSTACLES Liability Monitoring Verification CCS Technology maturity/cost Public acceptance Legislations Risks and barriers:Global

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) London Convention 1972 & London Protocol Amended OSPAR -Amended United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol  Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)  Annex I countries implement projects in non-Annex I countries  No methodology yet - Watch this space International legislations and regulations Risks and barriers:Global

Case Study: Malaysia

25 million people Economic development a priority Party to Kyoto Protocol but no binding targets High GDP growth rate and CO 2 emission  26th of the global highest emitters list (UNDP HDR 2007)  221% increase in CO 2 emission between 1990 and 2005 Source: Gan and Li (2008) Development and economic context Case study: Malaysia

Energy diversification, increase coal use Energy policy :  Fuel diversification  Huge potential in renewable energy but actual share has decreased  Target of coal already reached Interest in CDM  37 projects ≈ 2,830,000 CERs ≈ 2.83 MtCO 2 e/year  Potential >17,800,000 CERs/year ≈ billion RMY ( million € ) Case study: Malaysia

Low-cost CCS is possible in developing countries 1) Cheap CO 2 (pre-separated) Identify sources IEA 2006 database 2) Pipeline transport <50 km Estimate distances 3) And/or generating revenue from EOR EOR opportunities? Case study: Malaysia

Large stationary CO 2 sources 3 power plants East Malaysia Peninsular Malaysia 20 power plants (4 large coal) 7 cement 3 refineries 1 ammonia, ethylene, iron and steel 3 power plants 2 ethylene 1 ammonia Case study: Malaysia

Offshore oil and gas fields Source: Steinshouer et al. (1999) Case study: Malaysia

CO 2 source and sinks Case study: Malaysia

Incompatible source-sinks km km 345 km Case study: Malaysia

Potentials Case study: Malaysia Oil and gas producing fields= possible storage - Storage potential (Malay Basin ≈4321 Mt CO2 ; Greater Sarawak Basin ≈ 6679 Mt CO2) Some coal beds= possible ECBM Increasing CO2 emission Enhanced oil/gas recovery Storage in Indonesia’s Central Sumatran Basin

Risks and Barriers Offshore setting Source-sink mismatch Marine geologic storage No depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs Unknown storage potential Legislative barriers No GHG reduction requirement Different national priorities Lack of public awareness Case study: Malaysia COST

The take home message: Possibly large storage potential, technically feasible Technical improvements needed BUT there will always be costs associated with CCS  Appropriate price for CO 2 avoided  Legislative requirement Lack of regulatory certainty Taking enabling steps  Local legislations, geological site characterisation, long- term planning Conclusion

CCS needs to happen in BOTH developed and developing countries We need an economic incentive for CCS in developing countries Conclusion The take home message: MORE RESEARCH