CO2 capture and geological
storage - state of the art,
ongoing projects
EC FP6
EU GEOCAPACITY
CO2 EAST
and prospects for the Baltic
region
INTRODUCTION
 CO2 capture and storage is a pioneer for Estonia
research and applied area started by Institute of
Geology, TUT in 2006 by two projects funded by 6th
Framework Programme of European Comission
 1) Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage
of Carbon Dioxide (2006-2008), 26 participants from 23
countries (EUGEOCAPACITY)
 2) CO2 capture and storage networking extension to
new member states (1.10. 2006-31.03. 2009), 8 countries
(CO2EAST)
 Both projects were organised by ENeRG,
the European Network for Research in Geoenergy, established in 1993 and represented
by 24 countries
 http://energnet.nextnet.ro/
Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of
Carbon Dioxide (2006-2008),
Euroopas süsinikdioksiidi geoloogilise ladustamisvõime hindamine
(2006-2008)


























1Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) – Co-ordinatorDenmark
2Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski" (US)Bulgaria
3University of Zagreb - Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering (RGN)Croatia
4Czech Geological Survey (CGS)Czech Republic
5Institute of Geology at Tallinn University of Technology (IGTUT)Estonia
6Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Miniéres (BRGM)France
7Institute Francais du Petrole (IFP)France
8Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR)Germany
9Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (IGME)Greece
10Eötvös Loránd Geophysical Institute of Hungary (ELGI)Hungary
11Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale (OGS)Italy
12Latvian Environment, Geology & Meteorology Agency (LEGMA)Latvia
13Institute of Geology & Geography (IGG)Lithuania
14Geological Survey of the Netherlands (TNO-NITG)Netherlands
15EcofysNetherlands
16Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute - Polish Academy of Sciences (MEERI)Poland
17Geophysical Exploration Company (PBG)Poland
18National Institute of Marine Geology and Geo-ecology (GeoEcoMar)Romania
19Dionýz Štúr State Geological Institute (SGUDS)Slovakia
20GEOINŽENIRING d.o.o. (GEO-INZ)Slovenia
21Instituto Geológico y Minero de Espana (IGME)Spain
22British Geological Survey (BGS)United Kíngdom
23EniTecnologie (Industry Partner)Italy
24Endesa Generación (Industry Partner)Spain
25Vattenfall AB (Industry Partner)Sweden/Poland
26Tsinghua University (TU)P.R. China
http://nts1.cgu.cz/portal/page/portal/geocapacity
The objectives of the project
• To make an inventory and mapping of major CO2 emission point
sources in 13 European countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain), and review of 4
neighbouring states: Albania, Macedonia (FYROM), BosniaHerzegovina, Luxemburg) as well as updates for 5 other
countries (Germany, Denmark, UK, France, Greece)
• conduct assessment of regional and local potential for
geological storage of CO2 for each of the involved countries
• carry out analyses of source-transport-sink scenarios and
conduct economical evaluations of these scenarios
• provide consistent and clear guidelines for assessment of
geological capacity in Europe and elsewhere
• further develop mapping and analysis methodologies (i.e. GIS
and Decision Support System)
• develop technical site selection criteria
• initiate international collaborative activities with the P.R. China,
a CSLF member, with a view to further and closer joint
activities
CO2 capture and storage networking extension to
new member states (1.10. 2006-31.03. 2009)
CO2 hoidlate võrgu laiendamine uutele liikmesriikidele
No.
Participant organisation name
Country
1
Czech Geological Survey (CGS)
2
University of Zagreb - Faculty of Mining, Geology and
Petroleum Engineering (RGN)
Croatia
3
Eötvös Loránd Geophysical Institute of Hungary (ELGI)
Hungary
4
Dionýz Štúr State Geological Institute (SGUDS)
Slovakia
5
Institute of Geology, Tallinn University of Technology
(IGTUT)
Estonia
6
Geophysical Exploration Company (PBG)
Poland
7
National Institute for Marine Geology and Geoecology
(GeoEcoMar)
Romania
8
Statoil
Norway
Czech
Republic
The detailed objectives of the
project are:
 Provide membership support to new CO2NET member
organisations from EU new Member States and Associated
Candidate Countries by covering their annual membership fees
and travel costs to the CO2NET Annual Seminars and enable them
active participation in networking activities
 Co-organise one of the CO2NET Annual Seminars and organise 2
regional workshops in new Member States and/or Associated
Candidate Countries
 Disseminate knowledge and increase awareness of CO2 capture
and storage technologies in new Member States and Associated
Candidate Countries
 Establish links among CCS stakeholders in new Member States
and Associated Candidate Countries and between them and their
partners in other EU countries using the existing networks like
CO2NET and ENeRG (European Network for Research in GeoEnergy) as well as links with the newly established Technology
Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants
 Participants from Institute of Geogy, TUT
 A. Shogenova (coordination, data
presentation, publication and reporting)
 K. Shogenov
 J. Ivask (WEB-master)
 R.Vaher, A. Teedumäe (interpreters)
 A. Raukas – information dissemination in
government and mass-media
CO2NET Lectures on
Carbon Capture and
Storage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS
CO2 sources and capture
Storage, risk assessment and monitoring
Economics
Legal aspects and public acceptance
Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research
Sustainable
development
“a development that fulfills the needs of the
present generation without endangering the
ability of future generations to meet their own
needs”
(“Our Common Future”, 1987)
Dimensions of ‘sustainable development’
 People (Social dimension)
 Profit (Economic dimension)
 Planet (Ecological dimension)
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
source: IPCC, Working Group I
Rule of thumb
Warming rate 1°C / century corresponds to:
 ± 20 cm sea level rise
 ± 100 km shift of climate zone / century
 ± 150 m upward shift alpine climate
zone/century
Alpine glacier in 1900
Same place
present
International agreements
preventing "dangerous" human interference
with the climate system. (UNFCCC, 1992)
First step Kyoto: binding targets for
industrialised world. (EU -8%, VS -7%,
Japan -6% in 2008-2012 compared to
1990)
Origin of anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Land use
Energy
(deforestation, ...)
(fossil fuels)
/an
1,61,6
Gt Gt
C /Cyear
/an
6,36,3
Gt Gt
C /Cyear
CO2
/an)
(or(ou
2323
GtGt
CO
2 / year)
World annual emissions: 8 Gt C / year, or 30 Gt CO2 / year
Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research
CO2 fluxes between Earth and atmosphere
(in billion tons of carbon per year)
Options that can meet demands
1. Energy conservation, energy efficiency
2. Renewable sources
–
–
–
–
–
Wind
Solar
Biomass
Tidal/wave
Geothermal
3. (New) fossil fuels with CCS
4. Nuclear
Why CO2 Capture and Storage?






Third option for CO2 emission reduction.
Enables continued use of fossil fuel resources
Potential for large CO2 storage/disposal capacity.
Technology is available.
Costs CCS are significant, but can be reduced.
Environmental impact can be limited; further
research required.
Conclusion
CCS is the third choice
Worldwide CO2 emissions (billion ton CO 2/year)
150
125
100
Energy efficiency
75
Renewable energy
50
CO2 capture and storage
25
Fossil fuels
0
2000
2025
2050
Year
2075
Source: GESTCO project, Hendriks, Ecofys
2100
CO2NET Lectures on
Carbon Capture and
Storage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS
CO2 sources and capture
Storage, risk assessment and monitoring
Economics
Legal aspects and public acceptance
Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research
Contents lecture 2:
CO2 sources and
capture




CO2 sources
CO2 capture/decarbonisation routes
Separation principles
CO2 capture technologies in power cycles +
consequences on the power cycle
 Comparison of different CO2 capture technologies
 CO2 transport
CO2 emissions industry and
power
Source: IEA GHG 2002a
CO2 emissions by region
Source: IEA GHG 2002a
CO2 source distribution
Source: IEA GHG 2002b
CO2 sources and capture
 CO2 capture targets: large, stationary plants.
 Power production
– Large sources, representing large share total emissions
 Industrial processes
– Large sources, some emitting pure CO2
 Synthetic fuel production (Fischer-Trops
gasoline/diesel, Dimethyl ether (DME), methanol,
ethanol)
– Target sources in future?
Power plants
 Pulverised coal plants (PC)
 Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
 Integrated coal gasification combined cycle
(IGCC)
 Boilers fuelled with natural gas, oil, biomass
and lignite
 Future: fuel cells
CO2 capture routes: summary



Post-combustion capture: separation CO2-N2
Pre-combustion capture: separation CO2-H2
Oxyfuel combustion: separation O2-N2
Postcomb.
(flue gas)
p (bar)
~1 bar
[CO2] (%) 3-15%
Pre-comb.
(shifted
syngas)
10-80
20-40%
Oxyfuel
comb.
(exhaust)
~1 bar
75-95%
Separation principles
 Absorption: fluid dissolves or permeates into a
liquid or solid.
 Adsorption: attachment of fluid to a surface (solid
or liquid).
 Cryogenic (low-temperature distillation):
separation based on the difference in boiling
points
 Membranes: separation which makes use of
difference physical/chemical interaction with
membrane (molecular weight, solubility)
Absorption versus adsorption
Chemical versus physical
Chemical Adsorption
Physical Adsorption
Chemical Absorption
Physical Absorption
Physical adsorption
 Van der Waals forces
 Can be performed at high temperature
 Adsorbents: zeolites, activated carbon and
alumina
 Regeneration (cyclic process):
–
–
–
–
Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA)
Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA)
Electrical Swing Adsorption (ESA)
Hybrids (PTSA)
Chemical adsorption
 Covalent bonds
 Adsorbents: metal oxides, hydrotalcites
 Example: carbonation (>600°C) - calcination
(1000°C) reaction
CaO + CO2  CaCO3
 Regeneration (cyclic process):
– Pressure Swing Adsorption
– Temperature Swing Adsorption
Cryogenic separation: principles
(1)
 Distillation at low temperatures. Applied
to separate CO2 from natural gas or O2
from N2 and Ar in air.
substance
Triple point (°C, bar)
CO2
Boiling point
(°C@p0)
NA (sublimation)
CH4
O2
N2
Ar
-162
-183
-196
-186
-183, 0.12
-219, 0.0015
-210, 0.125
-199, 0.69
-57, 5.18
Membrane absorption
Source: Feron, TNO-MEP
Combining capture routes and
technologies: CO2 capture matrix
Capture
method
Principle of
separation
Membranes
Post-combustion
decarbonisation
Pre-combustion
decarbonisation
Denitrogenated
conversion




CO2/H2 separation based on:
 Ceramic membranes
 Polymeric membranes
 Palladium membranes
 Membrane gas
absorption
 O2-conducting
membranes
 Facilitated transport
membranes
 Solid oxide fuel cells
 Dolomite, hydrotalcites
and other carbonates
 Zirconates
 Improved absorption
liquids
 Improved design of
processes
CO2/H2 separations
 Adsorbents for O2/N2
separation, perovskites
 Chemical looping
 Absorbents for O2/N2
separation

Adsorption

Absorption




Cryogenic

Membrane gas absorption
Polymeric membranes
Ceramic membranes
Facilitated transport
membranes
Carbon molecular sieve
membranes
Lime
carbonation/calcinations
Carbon based sorbents
Improved absorption liquids
Novel contacting equipment
Improved design of
processes
Improved liquefaction
 Improved distillation for
air separation
Source: Feron, TNO-MEP
Summary: Post-combustion
capture
Chemical absorption is currently most feasible technology

 Technology is commercially available, although on a
smaller scale than envisioned for power plants with CO2
capture (>500 MWe)
 Energy penalty and additional costs are high with current
solvents. R&D focus on process integration and solvent
improvement.
 CO2 capture between 80-90%
 Power cycle itself is not strongly affected (heat integration,
CO2 recycling)
 Retrofit possibility
Summary: Pre-combustion
capture
 Chemical/physical absorption is currently most feasible
technology
 Experience in chemical industry (refineries, ammonia)
 Energy penalty and additional costs physical absorption
are lower in comparison to chemical absorption
 CO2 capture between 80-90%
 Need to develop turbines using hydrogen (rich) fuel
 No retrofit possibility
 Advanced concepts to decrease energy penalty/costs:
– sorption enhanced WGS/reforming
– membrane WGS/reforming
Oxyfuel combustion:
Chemical looping
combustion
Summary: Oxyfuel combustion
(1)
 Cryogenic air separation is currently most feasible
technology
 Experience in steel, aluminum and glass industry
 Energy penalty and additional costs are
comparable to post-combustion capture
 Allows for 100% CO2 capture
 NOx formation can be reduced
 FGD in PC plants might be omitted provided that
SO2 can be transported and co-stored with CO2
Summary: Oxyfuel combustion
(2)
 Boilers require adaptations (retrofit possible). R&D issues:
combustion behaviour, heat transfer, fouling, slagging and
corrosion.
 Application in NGCC: new turbines need to be developed
with CO2 as working fluid (no retrofit)
 R&D focus on development of new oxygen separation
technologies. Advanced concepts to decrease energy
penalty/costs:
– AZEP (separate combustion deploying oxygen membranes)
– Chemical looping combustion (separate combustion deploying
oxygen carriers).
Contents




CO2 sources
CO2 capture/decarbonisation routes
Separation principles
CO2 capture technologies in power cycles +
consequences on the power cycle
 Comparison of different CO2 capture technologies
 CO2 transport
CO2 transport
 Pipelines are most feasible for large-scale CO2 transport
– Transport conditions: high-pressure (80-150 bar) to
guarantee CO2 is in dense phase
 Alternative: Tankers (similar to LNG/LPG)
– Transport conditions: liquid (14 to 17 bar, -25 to -30°C)
– Advantage: flexibility, avoidance of large investments
– Disadvantage: high costs for liquefaction and need for
buffer storage. This makes ships more attractive for
larger distances.
Pipeline versus ship transport
Source: IEA GHG, 2004
Pipeline optimisation
 Small diameter: large pressure drop, increasing
booster station costs (capital + electricity)
 Large diameter: large pipeline investments
 Optimum: minimise annual costs (sum of pipeline
and booster station capital and O&M costs plus
electricity costs for pumping).
 Offshore: pipelines diameters and pressures are
generally higher as booster stations are expensive
CO2 quality specifications
 USA: > 95 mol% CO2
 Water content should be reduced to very low
concentrations due to formation of carbonic
acid causing corrosion
 Concentration of H2S, O2 must be reduced
to ppm level
 N2 is allowed up to a few %
CO2 transport costs
transport costs (€/t CO 2)
5
4
0.1 Mt/yr
1 Mt/yr
3
2 Mt/yr
4 Mt/yr
10 Mt/yr
2
20 Mt/yr
40 Mt/yr
1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
distance (km)
Source: Damen, UU
Risks pipeline transport
 Major risk: pipeline rupture. CO2 leakage can be
reduced by decreasing distance between safety
valves.
 CO2 is not explosive or inflammable like natural
gas
 In contrast to natural gas, which is dispersed
quickly into the air, CO2 is denser than air and
might accumulate in depressions or cellars
 High concentrations CO2 might have negative
impacts on humans (asphyxiation) and
ecosystems. Above concentrations of 25-30%,
CO2 is lethal.
Safety record pipelines
 Industrial experience in USA: 3100 km CO2
pipelines (for enhanced oil recovery) with
capacity of 45 Mt/yr
 Accident record for CO2 pipelines in the USA
shows 10 accidents between 1990 and 2001
without any injuries or fatalities. This
corresponds to 3.2.10-4 incidents per km*year
 Incident frequency of pipelines transmitting
natural gas and hazardous liquids in this period
is 1.7.10-4 and 8.2.10-4, respectively, with 94
fatalities and 466 injuries
Conclusion: CO2 transport is relatively safe.
CO2NET Lectures on
Carbon Capture and
Storage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS
CO2 sources and capture
Storage, risk assessment and monitoring
Economics
Legal aspects and public acceptance
Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research
Examples of storage
projects





Sleipner, North Sea (saline reservoir)
In-Salah, Algeria (gas reservoir)
K12B, North Sea (gas reservoir)
Weyburn, Canada (oil reservoir)
Enhanced Coal Bed Methane projects
– Alisson (New Mexico)
– Recopol (Poland)
2. Storage:
examples
Geological storage for CO2
Examples of geological storage of
Carbon dioxide
ZERO EMISSION CONCEPT
(by N.P. Chistensen, GEUS, Denmark)
1. Geology: reservoirs
Reservoir and seals
In general a reservoir consist of:
 Porous and permeable rocks
that can contain (a mixture of)
gas and liquid
 Rocks with pores of typically 530% of volume of the rock
(with diameters of nm-mm)
 A sealing by a non permeable
rock layer
Map of porosity distribution at cm Typical Reservoir size is
scale (right) and corresponding
0.05-50 km^3
sandstone thin section (left)
1. Geology: reservoirs
Naturally occurring reservoirs





Fresh water aquifer
Saline aquifer
Oil reservoir
Natural gas reservoir
CO2 reservoir
Natural CO2 occurrences in France
Natural CO2 fields
Exploited
carbogaseous waters
(mineral water, spa)
1. Geology: CO2
transport properties
Properties of geo-fluids
 All rocks in the crust contain fluids (water,
oil, natural gas, CO2)
 Transport of fluids depends on:
1. Density
2. Viscosity
3. Solvability
4. Miscibility
Desired fluid properties
for CO2 storage
1. Geology: CO2
transport properties




High density
High viscosity
High solvability
High miscibility
So: low temperature and high pressure
Immobilization and trapping
options: Physical
 Physical blocking by
– structural traps (anticlines, unconformities or faults)
– stratigraphic traps (change in type of rock layer)
 Hydrodynamic trapping by extremely slow
migration rates of reservoir brine
 Residual gas trapping by capillary forces in
pore spaces
 Negative buoyancy in case CO2 is denser than
its host rock
1. Geology: trapping
mechanisms
Immobilization and
trapping options:
Chemical
 Adsorption onto coal or organic-rich shales:
permanently reduced mobility
 Mineralization into carbonate mineral phases:
permanently reduced mobility
 Solubility trapping: CO2 dissolved in formation
waters forming one single phase:
greatly reduced mobility
Site selection criteria
High storage capacity
High porosity
High storage capacity
Large reservoir
Efficient injectivity
High permeability
1. Geology: site
selection
Safe and secure storage Low geoth. gradient & high pressure
Safe and secure storage Adequate sealing
Safe and secure storage Geological & hydrodynamic stability
Low costs
Good accessibility, infrastructure
Low costs
Source close to storage reservoir
1. Geology:
site selection
Advantages and
disadvantages of storage
sites
IEA, GHG, 2004
2. Storage




Examples
Storage in coal seams: ECBM
Potential storage capacity
Ocean storage
2. Storage:
examples
Locations of CO2 storage
activities
Source: IPCC
Simplified diagram of 2. Storage:
examples
the Sleipner CO2 storage
project
Source: IPCC
Characteristics Sleipner
2. Storage:
examples
 CO2 injection since 1996 (first commercial project)
 Storage of CO2 in (shallower) saline aquifer together
with production of natural gas
 Aquifer consists of unconsolidated sandstone and thin
(horizontal) shale layers that spreads CO2 laterally
 Seal consists of an extensive and thick shale layer
 ~1Mt CO2 removed from gas plant annually
 Estimate of total stored CO2 over entire lifetime:
20 MtCO2
Source: IPCC/IPIECA
Location of In Salah CO2
storage project
2. Storage:
examples
2. Storage:
examples
In Salah CO2 storage
project
 First large scale CO2 storage in a gas reservoir
 1 Mt CO2 stored into the Krechba (sandstone)
reservoir annually starting in April 2004
 CO2 injected into water filled parts of gas reservoir
(1.5 km)
 Seal consists of thick layer of mudstones (shales)
 4 production and 3 injection wells
 Use of long-reach horizontal wells
 Produced natural gas contains up to 10% CO2
 Estimate of total stored CO2 over entire lifetime:
17 Mt CO2
Cross section In Salah
gas reservoir
2. Storage:
examples
Source: IPCC
Offshore
location K12-B
project
2. Storage:
examples
K12-B
Amsterdam
Source: TNO/CATO
2. Storage:
Characteristics
examples
K12-B storage project
 Nearly empty gas reservoir at 4 km depth
 Reservoir rocks: Aeolian and fluvial sediments,
with relatively low permeability
 Tests for enhanced gas recovery: high miscibility
of gas and CO2 results in mixing instead of a
migrating front
 Annual injection of 20 ktonne of CO2 to be upscaled to 480 ktonne CO2/yr
Source: TNO
2. Storage:
examples
Weyburn storage project,
Canada
 Sedimentary Williston Basin of Mississippian
carbonate oil reservoir
 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
 CO2 source is a coal gasification company,
producing 95% pure CO2
 CO2 injection since 2000
 Estimate of total stored CO2 over entire lifetime: 20
Mt CO2
 Seal consists of anhydrite and shale
Source: IPCC
2. Storage:
examples
Location of storage site and
gasification plant and scheme
for EOR through CO2 storage
Source: IPIECA
Source: IPCC
2. Storage: ECBM
Storage in coal seams
2. Storage: ECBM
CO2 storage in Coal
 Coal contains micro-pores (r = 0.4 – 1 nm) suitable
for adsorption of gases, such as CO2 (r = ca. 0.3 nm)
 Higher affinity to adsorb CO2 than CH4
 One methane molecule can be replaced by at least
two molecules of CO2: Enhanced Coal Bed Methane
recovery (ECBM) of up to 95% extra gas recovery
 Ratio CO2/CH4 depends on the maturity and type of
coal
 Coal plastization and swelling can occur due to the
presence of CO2 and this reduces permeability
Sources: Siemens Tudelft and IPCC
Influencing factors
on coal adsorption
2. Storage:
ECBM
• Coal rank
– Peat  lignite  bituminous coal  anthracite
– Pore structure and size
– Moist content (rank dependent)
• Coal composition
– Presence of different macerals and minerals
• Moisture content
– Water molecules block adsorption sites of pore system
• pH change
• Temperature
– decreasing adsorption rates with increasing T
Source: Siemens TUDelft
2. Storage: ECBM
Problems related to CO2 injection
Swelling
• CO2 acts as a solvent that
destroys bonds of the coal
macro molecules  relaxation
of the coal structure
• Under constrained reservoir
conditions swelling causes a
reduction of porosity and
permeability (see figure)
Source Siemens Tudelft
Harpalani & Schaufnagel 1990
Example:
2. Storage: ECBM
Recopol European ECBM
project






EU co-funded research & demonstration project
Silesian Coal Basin of Poland
CO2 is pumped in coal seam at a depth of ~1km
Simultaneous production of methane
Injection and production started in 2004
Stimulation required because coal seam
permeability reduces in time, presumably due to
swelling from contact with the CO2
2. Storage: ECBM
Location of Recopol ECBM project
2. Storage:
potential capacity
Potential storage capacity
Reservoir type
Oil and gas fields
Unminable coal
seams (ECBM)
Deep saline
formations
a
Lower estimate of
storage capacity (GtCO2)
675a
Upper estimate of
storage capacity (GtCO2)
900a
3 - 15
200
1,000
Uncertain, but possibly
104
These numbers would increase by 25% if “undiscovered” oil and gas
fields were included in this assessment.
Compare worldwide CO2 emissions: 25 GtCO2/yr
Source: IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage.
2. Storage: ocean
Ocean storage principles
 Ocean storage is injection of CO2 into the deep ocean
water. At a dept of 2700 CO2 has a negative buoyancy.
Depth (m)
<500
phase
gas
density
Less than water
500-2700
liquid
Less than water
>2700
Crystalline
hydrate
Higher than
water
Physical properties
of CO2 in water
2. Storage: ocean
Depth (m)
<500
phase
gas
density
Less than water
500-2700
liquid
Less than water
>2700
Crystalline
hydrate
Higher than
water
3. Risks and
monitoring
Risks associated with CO2
storage in geological
reservoirs
 CO2 and/or CH4 leakage from the reservoir to the
atmosphere
 Micro-seismicity due to pressure and stress
changes in the reservoir, causing small earth
quakes and faults
 Ground movement, subsidence or uplift due to
pressure changes in the reservoir
 Displacement of brine from an open reservoir to
other formations, possibly containing fresh water
CO2 and CH4 leakage
3. Risks and
monitoring
Depends on thickness of overlying formations and
trapping mechanisms and occurs when:
 Inability of cap rock to prevent upward migration,
due to:
 too high permeability (possibility for diffusion of
CO2)
 dissolving of cap rock by reaction with CO2
 cap rock failure (fracturing and faulting due to over
pressuring of the reservoir)
 Escape through (old) wells through:
 Improper plugging
 Diffusion through cement or steel casing
 Dissolving of CO2 in fluid that flows laterally
Local and global effect
of CO2 leakage
3. Risks and
monitoring
 Local: Health effects at elevated CO2
concentration (accumulation of CO2 can occur in
confined areas)
 Local: Decrease of pH of soils and water, causing:
 Calcium dissolution
 Increase in hardness of the water
 Release of trace metals
 Global: leakage reduces the CO2 mitigation
option, effect depends on stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentration
 Stabilization targets
 Extend and timing of CO2 storage (simulation
models)
Source: Damen et al
Purpose of monitoring
3. Risks and
monitoring
 To ensure public health and safety of local
environment
 To verify the amount of CO2 storage
 To track migration of stored CO2 (simulation
models)
 To confirm reliability of trapping mechanisms
 To provide early warning of storage failure
Examples of monitoring
techniques
3. Risks and
monitoring
Monitoring
group
Monitoring technologies
Compartment
Engineering
Pressure, temperature, well tests
Wells
Geophysical
Seismics (3D), micro seismicity,
gravimetry, electro-magnetic, selfpotential, physical well logging
Reservoir and back ground system, wells
Geochemical
Production water & gas analysis,
tracers, overburden fluids, direct
measurements
Reservoir and surface
system
Geodetic
Geodetic, tilt measurements, satellite Surface system
interferometry, airborne sensing
Biological
Microbial, vegetation changes
Surface and
background system
Measurements are repeated in time or applied continuously
Source: Wildenborg, TNO
5. Conclusion




Conclusions
There is a high worldwide storage capacity potential
Different types of reservoirs occur naturally
CO2 will be stored for a very long time (10000 yr)
There is a possibility for enhanced recovery of fuel
from certain reservoirs
 High pressure and low temperature are preferable for
effective CO2 storage
 Several storage projects have already started
 Leakage and other risk should be monitored carefully
CO2NET Lectures on
Carbon Capture and
Storage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS
CO2 sources and capture
Storage, risk assessment and monitoring
Economics
Legal aspects and public acceptance
Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research
Cost of CCS
Performance new power
plants
(current technology)
New NGCC
New PC
New IGCC
Cap. Costs, no capt. (US$/kW)
~ 570
~ 1290
~ 1330
Cap. Costs, with capt. (US$/kW)
~ 1000
~ 2100
~ 1830
47-50 %
30-35 %
31-40 %
Plant efficiency, with capt.
COE, no capt. (US$/kWh)
0.031-0.050 0.043-0.052 0.041-0.061
COE, with capt. (US$/kWh)
0.043-0.072 0.062-0.086 0.054-0.079
Increase COE
Cost of net CO2 capt.
(US$/tCO2)
37-69 %
42-66 %
20-55 %
37-74
29-51
13-37
*) Gas prices: 2.8-4.4 US$/GJ; Coal prices: 1-1.5 US$/GJ
Source: IPCC SR-CCS, 2005
Cost of CCS
Total production costs of
electricity
Power plant
system
Natural Gas
Combined
Cycle
(US$/kWh)
Pulverized
Coal
(US$/kWh)
Integrated
Gasification
Combined
Cycle
(US$/kWh)
Without capture
(reference plant)
0.03-0.05
0.04-0.05
0.04-0.06
With capture
and geological
storage
With capture
and EOR
0.04-0.08
0.06-0.10
0.05-0.09
0.04-0.07
0.05-0.08
0.04-0.07
*) Gas prices: 2.8-4.4 US$/GJ; Coal prices: 1-1.5 US$/GJ
Source: IPCC SR-CCS, 2005
Cost of CCS
CO2 transportation costs
Transportation costs:
1-8 US$ / tCO2 / 250 km
(per 250 km, onshore and offshore)
Source: IPCC, SR-CCS, 2005
Cost of CCS
Cost CO2 storage
CCS system components:
Cost range
(US$/tCO2 avoided)
- Geological storage
- Geological storage:
monitoring and verification
- Ocean Storage
- Mineral carbonization
0.5 - 8
0.1 - 0.3
5 - 30
50 - 100
Source: IPCC, SR-CCS, 2005
Cost of CCS
Cost of electricity (€ct/kWh)
7
State of the art
Advanced
6
COAL
GAS
5
4
PC
3
NGCC
2
1
0
PC
IGCC
capital
NGCC
IGCC
advanced
fuel
CG-CES
o&m
IGCC-SOFC
NGCC
advanced
CO2 pipeline
CLC
AZEP
NGCC-SOFC
CO2 storage
Kay Damen, Utrecht University
CO2 benefits for EOR
In Texas CO2 is commercially bought for
Enhanced Oil Recovery.
The price paid for the CO2 is in this case
depended on the price of oil:
 11.7 US$/tCO2 (at 18 US$ per barrel of oil)
 16.3 US$/tCO2 (at 25 US$ per barrel of oil)
 32.7 US$/tCO2 (at 50 US$ per barrel of oil)
Conclusion economics of CCS
 The cost of CCS depends strongly on the
source, location and technology
(from slightly negative up to 100 €/ton)
 In some cases CCS only needs few or no
incentives
 CCS can play significant role when CO2
prices become 25–30 US$/tCO2 (IPCC)
 Capture (and capital) cost are in general the
biggest
 The costs can be reduced in the future
CO2NET Lectures on
Carbon Capture and
Storage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Climate Change, sustainability and CCS
CO2 sources and capture
Storage, risk assessment and monitoring
Economics
Legal aspects and public acceptance
Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research
International treaties on waste
Protection of the seas:
– London convention (1972)
– London protocol (1996)
– OSPAR (1992)
Habitat protection
– Convention on biological diversity (1992)
– Habitat directive
Conclusion CO2 storage & law
 In deep sea:
– Not allowed (unless via land-based pipe)
 Under seabed
– possibilities but also restrictions (storage method,
origin of CO2 and contamination CO2)
– Legal issues still under debate
 Under land
– Depends on national law, but probably allowed
For a smooth large scale implementation of
CCS adoptions of the treaties have to be
made.
Liability
Liability questions not solved yet:
 Who does own the stored CO2?
 Who pays for the monitoring?
 Who is responsible for long term
leakages
 ….
Conclusion lecture
To maintain public support:
 Fair and open communication
 (international) Legal frame work needs
adaptations
 Proper monitoring and risk management
 CCS as a third option
 The cost of CCS should be paid by the
emitter on longer term
CO2 emissions from Trade Union members, 2005
(tons/%)
BALTIC
Sector
Estonia
tons
Energy
11704636
STATES
Latvia
%
92
Lithuania
tons
%
tons
%
3132013
76,60
4526047
68,2
-
1870375
28,2
Oil refineries
-
-
Steel/Iron
-
369830
9,05
Cement
780241
6,1
420866
10,29
54681
0,8
32476
0,3
74290
1,82
74835
1,1
100045
0,8
85470
2,09
31645
0,5
51115
0,4
6294
0,15
-
Total (veryfied)
12721869
76
4088763
100,5
6632207
Allocation
16747054
Glass
Ceramic
Plants
Paper
4070078
13503454
49,1
CO2 sources >100 000 tons in the
Baltic States
CO2 sources >100 000 tons by Trade union
members in Estonia
Prospects for the
Baltic States
Properties of Cambrian reservoir in
the Baltic states (GEOBALTICA
project, S.Šliaupa)
200 km
1 - drinking water (salinity >1g/l, depth <500 m)
2 - table mineral water (salinity 1-10g/l); blue
dot indicates water-work exploiting bottled
mineral water (1.8-2 g/l)
3 - storage facilities, e.g. gas (porosity 20-30%,
depth ~1 km, thickness ~100 m);
4 - geothermal water
(temperature >40°C) and balneological water
(salinity >100g/l, Br>600mg/l);
5 - geothermal anomaly (temperature
>75°C, porosity ~5%, water salinity >170g/l,
Br > 600 mg/l)
6 - oil prospects; 7 - ongoing oil exploitation
1
2
3
5
6
7
4
GEOBALTICA project data
GEOBALTICA project data
GEOBALTICA project data
Lithuania
Next event of CO2EAST project
 Carbon Capture and Storage – Response to
Climate Change
 Regional Workshop for CE and EE Countries27-28
February 2007 in Zagreb, Croatia Organised by:
University of Zagreb Faculty of Mining, Geology
and Petroleum Engineering Pierottijeva 6, HR-10
000 Zagreb, Croatia
 Workshop web-site: www.co2neteast.rgn.hr (after
20 Dec. 2006)