Selecting the Best Regional Sequestration Options Dick Rhudy EPRI WESTCARB Annual Meeting October 27-28, 2004 Portland Oregon

2 Purpose The assessment is intended to help identify the best regional opportunities for carbon sequestration in the West Coast Region Subsequent analysis of actual pilot candidates will involve assessments at a greater level of specification, and perhaps quantification This is a working draft of the methodology and comments are welcome

3 Five Major Objectives Have Been Identified 1.Cost 2.Risk 3.Regulations and permitting 4.Environmental enhancements 5.Public acceptance

4 The Value of Regional Alternatives Will Be Measured Using Metrics for Each of the Important Factors Cost of Capture, Transport, and Sequestration (one metric) –Metric: $/ton of CO 2 captured and sequestered –Preference: Cheaper is better Risk (one metric) –Metric: Capability of the storage media to prevent leakage and HSE impacts –Preference: Alternatives that minimize leakage (minimum pre- existing wells, minimum conductive faults, multiple seals, structural trap, etc.) Regulations and permitting (one metric) –Metric: Difficulty of obtaining permits or meeting regulations where the alternative would sited (existing land use) –Preference: Private land where with facilities would be easiest (Class II wells may exist at this site)

5 The Value of Regional Alternatives Will Be Measured Using Metrics for Each of the Important Factors (cont.) Public acceptance (4 metrics) –Metric 1: Familiarity with energy projects, particularly fossil projects, in the region of the alternative –Preference for metric 1: More projects over a longer time horizon is better –Metric 2: Number of participating organizations and jobs created by the project –Preference for metric 2: More participating organizations and jobs created, or sustained, because of the project (where jobs are most needed) is better –Metric 3: Economic value of business created by the project –Preference for metric 3: Greater economic value (multiplier) and importance of project to the local economy is desirable –Metric 4: Number of businesses and people affected economically by the project –Preference for metric 4: More businesses and people affected is better

6 The Value of Regional Alternatives Will Be Measured Using Metrics for Each of the Important Factors (cont.) Environmental enhancements (five metrics for terrestrial sequestration) –Metric 1: Improving the health of the forest [acres of forest improved ] (resistance to disease, pests, and fire) –Preference for metric 1: More acres is better and more improvement is better –Metric 2: Improving wildlife habitat for important species (degree of improvement and number of acres) –Preference for metric 2: More acres and more improvement is better –Metric 3: Preventing soil erosion and stream sedimentation –Preference for metric 3: More acres improved and greater significance of the improvement is better –Metric 4: Reclaiming poorly managed soils –Preference for metric 4: More acres and greater degree of improvement in soils is better –Metric 5: Recreational value (recreational value and closeness to populations) –Preference for metric 5: Greater recreational value and closer to larger populations is better

7 The Relative Importance Is Assessed for Each Objective RegsCostEnvPub AccRisk Relative Importance Note: Hypothetical Values

8 Each Alternative Will Be Evaluated for Its Performance with Respect to Each Objective

9 Comparison of Alternatives Is Achieved by Combining Importance and Performance