7th Doha Natural Gas Conference & Exhibition
A Review of Climate Change Regulatory Framework, and
Applications in Qatar with Special References to RasGas’
Facilities
L. Fragu, M. Finley, N. Bagchi, M. Al-Qadi
RasGas Company Limited
Qatar
Introduction
Climate change as a result of global warming due to the emissions of
greenhouse gases is today recognized as the major environmental threat with
potential catastrophic consequences for human development. While mitigation
of climate change will succeed with engagement and active participation of all
countries, local opportunities and threats do vary and need to be considered by
policy makers, regulators and industries facing this global problem. For the State
of Qatar, environmental and socioeconomic risks and vulnerabilities associated
with climate change include the risk of loss of land, the damage to marine
environment, multiple health risks or the cost of long term adaptation (Linke,
2009).
This paper provides an overview of the climate change regulatory framework
established by the United Nations and the status of the efforts engaged by the
State of Qatar in line with this framework. Furthermore, the development of
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) projects as one of the promising
carbon reduction opportunities will be discussed with the experience of Qatarbased Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) producer, RasGas Company Limited.
I. Climate Change Policy Framework
The Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international environmental
treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
1
Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3–14 June 1992. The treaty intended to achieve
"stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
(UN, 1998). The Kyoto Protocol establishes legally binding commitments for
the reduction of four greenhouse gases (GHG, e.g., carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride), and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and per-fluorocarbons) produced by "Annex I" (industrialized)
nations, as well as general commitments for all member countries. As of 2008,
183 parties have ratified the protocol, which was initially adopted for use on 11
December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and which entered into force on 16 February
2005. Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized ratified countries agreed to
reduce their collective GHG emissions by 5.2% compared to the year 1990.
National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and
some others to 7% for the United States, 6% for Japan, and 0% for Russia. The
treaty permitted GHG emission increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for
Iceland.
The Kyoto Protocol includes defined "flexible mechanisms" such as Emissions
Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation
(JI) to allow Annex I economies to meet their GHG emission limitations by
purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from elsewhere, through financial
exchanges, implementing projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I
economies, from other Annex I countries, or from Annex I countries with
excess allowances. In practice this means that Non-Annex I economies have no
GHG emission restrictions, but have financial incentives to develop GHG
emission reduction projects to receive "carbon credits" that can then be sold to
Annex I buyers, encouraging sustainable development. In addition, the flexible
mechanisms allow Annex I nations with efficient, low GHG-emitting
industries, and high prevailing environmental standards to purchase carbon
credits on the world market instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
domestically. Annex I entities typically will want to acquire carbon credits as
cheaply as possible, while Non-Annex I entities want to maximize the value of
carbon credits generated from their domestic GHG projects.
Among the Annex I signatories, all nations have established Designated
National Authorities (DNA) to manage their greenhouse gas portfolios;
countries including Japan, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France,
Spain and others are actively promoting government carbon funds, supporting
multilateral carbon funds intent on purchasing Carbon Credits from NonAnnex I countries, and are working closely with their major utility, energy, oil
and gas and chemicals conglomerates to acquire Greenhouse Gas Certificates
as cheaply as possible. Virtually all of the non-Annex I countries have also
established Designated National Authorities to manage the Kyoto process,
2
specifically the "CDM process" that determines which GHG Projects they wish
to propose for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board.
2007 Bali Roadmap
After the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference on the island of
Bali in Indonesia in December, 2007, the participating nations adopted the Bali
Roadmap (also known as the Bali Action Plan) as a two-year process to
finalizing a binding agreement in 2009 in Denmark. The nations acknowledge
that evidence for global warming is ''unequivocal'', and that humans must
reduce emissions to reduce the risks of "severe climate change impacts". There
was a strong consensus for updated changes for both developed and
developing countries. Although there were no specific numbers agreed upon in
order to cut emissions, many countries agreed that there was a need for "deep
cuts in global emissions" and that "developed country emissions must fall 1040% by 2020" (UN, 2008).
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
The CDM approval process is complex and timely. The UNFCCC recognizes
that there is currently a two-year back log of approvals for CDM projects
(Gyungae, 2008). Below is a generalized overview.
1. Project Design Document (PDD): prepare a PDD by estimating the
GHG emissions from the proposed project, reference scenarios and
leakages. The PDD has to justify that funds from CDM are needed for
the project to proceed.
2. Approval from the Designated National Authority (DNA): in Qatar, the
Ministry of Environment is the DNA responsible to confirm sustainable
development criteria for projects.
3. Existing or New Methodology: if the project is unique then it will
require a new methodology which is a time consuming process. The
new methodology is reviewed by a panel of experts constituted by the
Executive Board called the "Methodologies Panel" before final Board
approval. A new methodology can take 12 - 18 months to get approved.
4. Designated Operation Entity (DOE) for Validation: DOE reviews the
projects to make sure they fulfill CDM criteria, and act as an
intermediary between the Project Developer and the Executive Board.
After the DOE clears the project it submits a request for registration to
the UNFCCC Executive Board.
3
5. Approval from the Executive Board: the CDM Executive Board meets 4
- 5 times / year, and is responsible to give final approval or registration
to projects.
6. Designated Operational Entity for Verification: the DOE is called in
second time after the project is registered for the monitoring phase. For
large scale projects, the DOE for Verification cannot be the same DOE
as for the validation stage. Once the DOE is satisfied that the GHG
reductions that were set out have been achieved, those emission
reductions are certified.
Additionality is the term used to describe if a project being will result in a net
decrease in GHG emissions. A CDM project is additional if anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would
have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity. For
example a company can get Certified Emission Reductions (CER’s) if it
voluntarily installs a waste heat recovery boiler that saves energy and thus
reduces the amount of carbon dioxide emitted. However if the same company
was directed to undertake the project activity because of law, for example if the
industry is legally mandated to have a waste-heat recovery boiler, such a project
is generally not eligible for CDM benefits.
If these criteria are fulfilled, then the developer follows two more steps as part
of the PDD:
1. Outline the alternatives to the CDM activity
The developer has to first outline what the possible outcomes of the
project are if it doesn’t get CDM benefits – so called "baseline" scenarios
the associate green house gas emissions. It must then show that with the
CDM project, GHG emissions are reduced. This reduction in emissions
over the baseline is the CER's that the project would generate.
2. Investment analysis
Once the possible alternatives are outlined, and the CDM project is
shown to have lower GHG emissions, the developer must show that
CDM scenario satisfies that it is:

Not common practice in the region or sector;

The least financially attractive option available; or

Faces "barriers" preventing implementation if the project was not
registered as a CDM project such as:
- Financial: such as inability to get bank loans
- Technological: lack of infrastructure for implementation or
skills/labor to operate the technology.
- Unique: No project activity of it's type is operational in the
country
4
Financing for a CDM can come from CER. A CER is given by the CDM
Executive Board to projects in developing countries to certify they have
reduced GHG emissions by one ton of carbon dioxide per year. For example,
if a project generates energy using wind power instead of burning coal, it can
save 50 tons of carbon dioxide per year. There it can claim 50 CERs (as one
CER is equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide reduced). Developed countries
can then buy CERs from developing countries under the CDM process to help
them achieve their Kyoto targets. As of August 2008, 1,146 projects were
registered as CDM projects, generating approximately 1.3 billion CERs and
about 3,000 projects were in the pipeline (including registered projects) with
projected 2.7 billion CERs by the end of 2012 (Gyungae, 2008).
II. Qatar’s position with regards to climate change
Qatar Greenhouse Gases Emissions
The 2007/2008 Human Development Report published by the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP, 2008) provide an estimate of Qatari national
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of 52.9 million tons (MMt) per year in 2004,
which represents an increase of 23.9 percent from estimated 1990 levels. These
emissions estimates mainly refer to CO2 stemming from consumption of fossil
fuels and from gas flaring. This 2004 estimate amounts to approximately 79.3
tons of CO2 per capita, which due to Qatar’s comparatively small population
represents the highest per capita CO2 emissions in the world. Nonetheless, in
terms of total CO2 emissions, Qatar represents a share of only 0.2% of world
CO2 emissions (see Figure 1). Qatari total CO2 emissions (52.9 MMt/year) are
also much lower in comparison to other GCC countries (KSA = 308.2
MMt/year, UAE = 149.1 MMt/year, Kuwait = 99.3 MMt/year). In 2006, the
Qatari total CO2 emissions were estimated at 59.8 MMt (Al-Mulla, 2009). The
total national emissions in 2006 were mostly dominated by emissions associated
with oil and gas operations (70%), followed by electricity and water sector
(20%) and road transport and construction sector (10%). While the
contribution of flaring emissions to the national emissions has decreased since
2001 with mitigation efforts implemented by the oil and gas industry (20% in
2006), the overall emissions from the oil and gas sector increased at an average
growth rate of 37%) due to major development of the natural gas industry.
5
Policies and initiatives in Qatar
As of 11 January 2005, the State of Qatar is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol
to the UNFCCC and is considered a Non-Annex 1 country. As a
Non-Annex I country, Qatar does not currently have any binding emission
reduction targets. Consequently, any GHG emission reductions undertaken in
Qatar are voluntary. The Designated National Authority in Qatar under the
Kyoto protocol is the Ministry of Environment (previously Supreme Council
for the Environment and Natural Reserves). A number of recent initiatives
demonstrate the strong commitment of the State of Qatar to mitigation of
climate change, as described in the following.
The Qatar National Vision 2030 approved by Emiri Decision (44) in 2008 and
coordinated by the General Secretariat for Development Planning (GSDP),
defines the long-term outcomes for the country and provides a framework
within which national strategies and implementation plans can be developed,
including environment preservation and development policies. The second
Human Development Report meeting held in January 2009 addressed the
challenges of “Achieving the Environmental Development Outcomes of the
Qatar National Vision 2030”.
The National Committee for Climate Change (NCCC) was established in 2007
and acts as the supreme national policy formulating body. The NCCC is
chaired by the Qatar Minister of Environment and consists of members drawn
from Qatar University, Qatar Petroleum, the Office of HH Heir Apparent, the
Civil Aviation General Authority, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment. The primary objectives of the
NCCC are to develop, coordinate and monitor the implementation of a
national climate change policy in line with sustainable development objectives
and national circumstances. In 2009, the State of Qatar is expected to submit to
the UNFCC its Initial National Communication (INC).
In November 2008, Qatar hosted the 8th Conference of the Parties to the
Vienna Convention and 20th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer where it was agreed that the fight
against global warming and climate change can be greatly assisted through the
protection of the ozone layer and phase-out of ozone depleting substances. A
key result of the meeting was the implementation of greater coordination
between the Montreal Protocol ozone agreement with the UNFCC (UNEP,
2008).
The policy development effort has been engaged in Qatar by all involved
parties with active participation of Qatar Petroleum which formed in 2008 two
working groups to develop common strategy and anticipate future
requirements (Industry Committee on Climate Change) and to standardize and
6
implement common GHG monitoring and reporting practices for the industry
(Industry Emissions Inventory Committee for the Energy Sector). In addition,
Qatar Petroleum initiated in 2008 the development of CDM guidelines to
provide the industry with a framework for identification and development of
projects inline with UFCC CDM principles.
Acknowledging the importance of gas flaring as one of the main contributor in
national GHG emissions, Qatar has become in 2008 the first GCC country to
join a World Bank program to reduce its GHG emissions through reduction in
gas flaring. This initiative is a part of the World Bank’s Global Gas Flaring
Reduction (GGFR) project (Peninsula Qatar, 2008). The country has also set a
deadline of 2010 to achieve zero gas flaring, according to Deputy Premier and
Energy Minister HE Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah. The Al-Shaheen Oil
Field Gas Recovery and Utilization Project in Qatar recently received approval
from the United Nations under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
The project, which is being developed by Qatar Petroleum, will be aimed at
reducing GHG emissions from the Al-Shaheen oilfield by an estimated 2.5
MMt/year of GHG emissions until 2014.
In line with Qatar vision of developing world class education and research
infrastructures, Qatar is also funding a number of climate change research
initiatives, including:

The energy research and climate change fund announced at the recent
OPEC summit held in Riyadh ($15 million);

A $70 million 10-year joint research project with Shell, Qatar
Petroleum, Qatar Science and Technology Park and Imperial College
London focusing in Carbon Capture and Sequestration in carbonate
reservoirs;

A $210 million confirmed investment from Qatar Investment
Authority into newly formed UK venture capital fund for renewable
energy projects.
Finally, Qatar is hosting numerous major international events with greater
emphasis on environment and climate change issues. In April 2009, the
“Carbon World Doha 2009” meeting will discuss opportunities in Qatar and
the Middle East for CDM, Carbon Capture and Sequestration and participation
in global carbon trade. Witnessing the rising interest of Middle East investors in
carbon trading, the Doha bank announced in 2008 its plans to establish a
Carbon Exchange in Qatar with backing from the billion dollar Sukook
Initiative. The intent of this initiative was investing through Islamic banking in
companies that were developing sustainable and clean energy solutions.
Progress was being made by the Doha Bank through discussions with several
international carbon trading organizations and consultants until the September
2008 sub-prime loan crisis. As a s result of the current global economic
7
situation the Doha Bank Management Board is reviewing its priorities and will
make a determination in the near future on whether to continue the initiative
(Doha Bank, 2008).
III. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS): overview and opportunities
in Qatar
One of the promising opportunities for climate change mitigation is the
development of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS, also referred to as
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage). Existing and new
technologies associated with CCS and LNG producer RasGas Company
Limited (RasGas) experience in this field are discussed in the following.
Brief Overview of CCS
CCS is one of the available GHG reduction project families, also including
cogeneration, flare reduction, fuel switching and energy efficiency
improvements. CCS refers to the chain of processes to collect or capture a CO2
gas stream, transport the CO2 to a storage location, and inject the CO2 into a
geological formation for long-term isolation from the atmosphere. For a CCS
project to be regarded as a climate change mitigation activity, the geological
formations at the selected site must have the appropriate long-term
containment capability. Definition of long-term containment or an insignificant
probability of physical leakage is a policy matter. Figure 2 presents the overall
CCS process chain and Figure 3 provides an overview of current and planned
global CCS project.
CO2 Capture
Electricity generation (29% of total global CO2 emissions, coal, gas, oil and
biomass-fired power plants), industrial processes (production of iron, cement,
chemicals and pulp) and fuel production (oil refineries, natural gas and synfuel
production facilities) offer vast potential for large-scale, centralized capture of
CO2. Figure 4 present the main processes, i.e., pre-combustion (steam
reforming and gasification), post-combustion (flue gas separation), oxy-firing
combustion and separation of industrial process gas streams (refer to the
example of RasGas); a brief description of each is provided in the following:
Pre-combustion
While both Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC, technology
turning coal into a syngas) and pre-combustion CO2 capture technologies are
8
considered available, only four gigawatts of IGCC power plants have been built
worldwide as of the end of 2007 (WRI, 2007). None of the existing IGCC
plants have the technologies needed to capture the CO2. When CO2 is
separated from the syngas, a turbine that can function in a hydrogen-rich
environment is needed. Hydrogen-fired turbines are being developed for this
purpose, and have been demonstrated but are not at the same state of
technological readiness as syngas-fired turbines.
Post-combustion:
Besides the use of an amine solution (chemical absorption into solution), the
options for post-combustion capture include physical adsorption with a solvent
(ionic liquids) or a sorbent (metal organic frameworks), membrane separation
from the gas (membrane/amine hybrids or enzymatic CO2 processes), and
cryogenic separation by distillation or freezing (U.S. DOE/NETL, 2007).
Chemical absorption into a solution is currently the preferred approach for
separating CO2 from flue gases at low concentrations, such as those associated
with power plants. There is considerable experience using amines, such as
MEA, for the separation of CO2 during natural gas processing and in the
development of food-grade CO2. While expensive, it is currently considered a
commercial post-combustion capture process (MIT, 2007).
Oxy fuel combustion:
As of 2008, oxy-fuel power plants are in the early stages of development with
pilot-scale construction currently underway in Europe and in North America.
CO2 Transport
Pipelines operate as a mature market technology and historically are the most
common method for transporting CO2. These pipelines operate at ambient
temperature and high pressure, with flow driven by pumps. There are currently
about 5,000 km of land-based CO2 pipelines in existence worldwide (IOGCC,
2005), with more expected to be built or begin operation in the near future.
Bulk transport of CO2 by ship also takes place, though on a much smaller scale.
This occurs in insulated containers at low temperatures and much lower
pressures than pipeline transport. Transport by truck and rail occurs for small
quantities of CO2, but is unlikely to be widely used if large volumes of CO2 are
to be transported for CCS purposes.
CO2 Storage
Figure 5 represents the common CO2 storage options including depleted oil
and natural gas reservoirs, producing oil reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery
(EOR), natural gas formations for enhanced gas recovery (EGR), unmineable
coal seams suitable for enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM) recovery
9
operations and deep saline formations, where the sole purpose is CO2 storage.
CO2 is retained in geological formations by a combination of physical and
geochemical trapping mechanisms, including the presence of an impermeable
cap rock, trapping by capillary forces in small pores, dissolution in water
(solubility trapping, over hundreds to thousands of years) and long-term
mineralization to carbonate structures (over thousands to millions of years). In
oil reservoirs, CO2 may dissolve in and be produced with oil, but a portion of
the CO2 will remain in the reservoir. ECBM through the injection of CO2 is
possible due to the preferential adsorption of CO2 over methane onto the coal
matrix, CO2 will remain trapped as long as pressures and temperatures remain
stable and the coal is not disturbed by mining or seismic activity.
CO2 geological storage requires the development at all phases of the project of
an extensive risk management and reporting program including pre-operational
characterization and risk analysis, operational monitoring and reservoir
simulation, closure, post-closure and potentially remediation program. This
involves many of the same technologies that have been developed in the oil
and natural gas exploration and production industry for EOR purposes – well
drilling, fluid injection, computer simulation of storage reservoir systems,
performance monitoring, and well intervention methods. A matrix of available
technologies for monitoring during storage is provided in Figure 6.
The Sleipner Project implemented by StatoilHydro, the longest-running largescale CCS project in the world, began capturing CO2 from natural gas
processing off the coast of Norway in 1996. The CO2 is captured using a
conventional amine capture process, and is then stored in a saline reservoir
under the North Sea. StatoilHydro has already injected 12-15 millions tons of
CO2 and anticipates that more than 40 millions tons of CO2 will have been
injected by 2015 (SPE, 2008).
CO2 Injection and Capture at RasGas
RasGas’ processing facilities lie to the North of Qatar within the Ras Laffan
Industrial City (RLC), and are fed from facilities located approximately 90 km
offshore. Production at RasGas started in 1999 and the company now runs one
of the largest Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) complex in the world, and one of
the largest integrated gas processing facilities, producing both lean and rich
LNG, Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPGs), gas condensates, liquefied Helium
and sales gas. By 2010 the LNG production at RasGas will reach 36.3 millions
tons of LNG per year with seven production units (LNG trains).
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) and CO2 are two gases, referred to as acid gases,
present in the North Field at concentrations of approximately 3% and that
10
need to be separated from the main gas stream during the LNG production to
meet a product specification of 4 ppm of H2S and 50 ppm of CO2. The
separation is completed at RasGas Onshore Facilities at the Acid Gas Removal
unit which utilizes an amine mixture (UCARSOLTM or SULFINOLTM) and
produces a concentrated acid gas stream with approximately 24% H2S and 74%
CO2. Original (LNG Train 1&2) and latest (LNG Train 6&7 and sales gas plant
AKG2) units will treat the acid gas in an enrichment unit followed by a
conventional sulfur recovery plant, with production of pure sulfur product and
emissions of CO2 and sulfur dioxide (SO2) during the tail gas treatment
incineration. For RasGas expansion projects (LNG Train 3,4&5 and sales gas
plant AKG), Qatar Petroleum investigated the opportunity of injection of the
acid gas stream into a geological formation (the Arab formation, at a vertical
depth of approximately 5,600 feet) with injection wells located on the onshore
plant site. The license obtained in 2005 for a 25-year contract period, allows
injection of acid gas into two onshore disposal wells at a maximum rate of 88
million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd). A schematic of the acid gas
injection process is provided in Figure 7.
The Arab Formation is composed of inter-bedded layers of porous and
permeable carbonate (i.e. limestone and dolostone) and non-porous and non
permeable anhydrite. It is subdivided into 4 primary carbonate horizons (A, B,
C, D). Each primary carbonate horizon is separated from the next by a layer of
anhydrite. The carbonate and anhydrite layers of the Arab Formation are
regionally continuous. Numerous reservoir studies were completed to assert the
potential for injection and safe long term storage including a reservoir
simulation study to determine the formation injectivity, required injection
pressure and fracture pressure, and fluid front over the project lifetime. The
Arab formation was concluded to have adequate injection capacity for the
proposed injection rates throughout the project life. Based on the modeled
expected increase in reservoir pressure, the final injection pressure was
determined to be significantly lower than the fracture pressure. The study also
showed a lateral migration of the acid gas front to a distance of 4 km in the
most permeable layer after 40 years. In addition, an evaluation of the sealing
potential of the overlying Hith Formation was done and concluded that there
was an extremely low chance that the seal of the Hith Formation could be
breached due to faulting or fracturing, within the injection area. Annual
monitoring surveys are conducted using micro gravity method which was
determined to be the best suited monitoring strategy. Gravity is accurately
measured at approximately 300 stations over a 50 km2 area centered around the
injection site. Results of the monitoring surveys currently indicate that acid
gases are contained as expected in local area below Hith seal, that reservoir
injectivity is steady and that pressure is well below fracture pressure.
11
Injection of acid gases at RasGas started in 2005 and reached 80 MMscfd in
2007. This represents a reduction in CO2 emissions of approximately 3,300
tons per day. The net emission reduction for a typical acid gas injection
scenario compared to a conventional sulfur recovery process, taking into
account CO2 emissions associated with acid gas injection (including fugitive
emissions, venting and combustion emissions, indirect emissions associated
with electricity and fuel consumption), is approximately 85% (IPIECA,
2007). Based on this typical efficiency, it is estimated that the acid gas
injection option implemented at RasGas for LNG Train 4&5 and sales gas
plant AKG result in a reduction 2800 tons per day of CO2 (approximately
1million tons per year). This option also results in a second significant
environmental benefit, the emission reduction of approximately 32 tons per
day of SO2 emissions compared to a 98% efficiency sulfur recovery process.
Based on existing technologies, the alternatives to acid gas injection performed
at RasGas with their respective detriments, are as follows:

Typical sulfur recovery process: common practice, in place at RasGas
for other LNG trains, results in CO2 emissions and subject to stringent
future regulations for SO2 emissions;

Combustion of acid gas stream in an incinerator: high associated costs
to achieve SO2 reduction in line with regulations; not likely to be
permitted;

Capture of CO2 and H2S and injection back in the gas production
reservoir: higher cost for transport compared to injection onshore,
increased field gas sulfur content resulting in corrosion issues;

Capture and separation of CO2 for utilization in another market: cost
associated with separation of CO2 from H2S, with additional
infrastructure for transport, uncertain market;

Capture and separation of CO2 for EOR or EGR: cost associated with
capture and transport infrastructure, possible option depending on
reservoir availability.
Currently, the RasGas acid gas injection facility is the first of its kind in Qatar.
Potential alternative reservoirs for CO2 injection as enhanced oil recovery are
currently being investigated by Qatar Petroleum. Collection of CO2 emissions
from the Acid Gas Enrichment unit (achieving a concentration of the H2S
stream prior to the sulfur recovery plant) represents another opportunity for
reduction of CO2 footprint from LNG plants in Qatar once a sequestration
strategy is finalized.
12
Conclusion and Recommendations
In this paper an overview of the international climate change regulatory
framework was provided and the initiatives of the State of Qatar in this field
were discussed. In the absence of country specific GHG emission reduction
target (Non Annex 1 country) or state-wise GHG policy, it should be noted
that some oil and gas companies in Qatar are currently estimating GHG
emissions associated with their production facilities, reporting them through
available benchmarks (such as the Shell Global Solutions benchmark for LNG
companies, SGS) and assessing the potential for implementing voluntary GHG
emission reduction projects. Following the observation of increased ambient
ozone concentrations in Qatar, the Ministry of Environment is enforcing
challenging regulations for NOx or VOC (both being ozone precursors) and a
number of NOx or VOC emission reduction projects are currently being
implemented for existing industries such as common projects for optimization
of synergies (i.e., the forthcoming VOC destruction unit in Ras Laffan City) or
individual programmes for retrofit of NOx emission controls or flaring
minimization projects. Project proponents are also required to constantly
evaluate and implement Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best Practicable
Environmental Options (BPEO) for new projects. Increased efforts focused
on GHG emissions will likely result from regulatory or market incentives which
will depend on the future UNFCC discussions as well as the development of
US carbon trading voluntary market. It is anticipated that the Qatar proactive
approach to sustainable development will shortly culminate in the development
of a State GHG policy and an implementation plan for emission reduction.
The characteristics of Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies were
then introduced in the second part. CCS may play a significant role in
mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and existing oil and natural gas industry
experience and expertise provide a basis for and confidence in CCS. The global
deployment of CCS projects will depend on the commercial development of
capture technologies (i.e., for power plants), eligibility of CCS projects as
candidate CDM projects and public and policy maker acceptance necessitating
the demonstration of minimized risks associated with CO2 long term storage.
Financial benefits achievable with CCS projects with EOR application would
also likely trigger the development of CCS in the Middle East. It is estimated
that more than 5 million tons of CO2 currently being vented could be collected
from existing Qatar LNG units (SPE, 2008). In 2008, the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) government announced the development of facilities
capturing CO2 emissions from Abu Dhabi’s industrial and power generation
plants. The UAE’s government initiative, Masdar, is currently conducting a
Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) study for a project of capture of 5
million tons of CO2 per year as of end 2013 from three emission sources: a gasfired power plant, an aluminum smelter and a steel mill. The CO2 will be
13
transported in a pipeline network and injected in Abu Dhabi’s oil reservoirs for
enhanced oil recovery (Masdar, 2009).
Opportunities that could be applied in Qatar within the GHG emission
reduction technologies’ portfolio and potentially eligible as CDM projects
include the following:
 Renewable energy (wind, solar): industries and other companies are
currently developing projects utilizing locally the significant potential
of solar energy. In 2008 at RasGas, the upgradation of waste storage
area included the installation of 22 solar lights.
 Methane avoidance (gas distribution, landfills): emissions associated
with landfills can potentially be reduced or eliminated by developing
compositing alternatives for waste streams currently being sent to
landfills or implementing source reduction programs.
 Energy efficiency (manufacturing industries, district cooling, housing):
green building certifications such as the LEED certification are
currently being pursued for a number of new construction projects,
including the future Energy City Qatar.
 Fuel
switching (manufacturing industries, transportation, power
generation): potential for increased utilization of the new generation of
clean fuels produced in Qatar (Gas To Liquids, GTL) or Liquefied
Petroleum Gases (LPG). Qatar Airways has announced its intention to
obtain certification from US and EU aviation agencies for use of GTL
in its aircraft engines. In 2007, Qatar Transport Company (Mowasalat)
launched its first LPG-fuelled taxi.
 Increase the opportunities for CCS with financial support from the
State so that industries can be encouraged to implement existing as well
as new technologies to control CO2 and gain from carbon trading or
CDM.
.
.
14
References
Linke, P., 2009: Climate Change and Human Development: Risks and
Vulnerabilities of Climate Change in Qatar. For Qatar Second’s National
Human Development Report on Sustainable Development. Qatar National
Vision 2030, UNDP, GSDP.
UN, 1998: Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
UN, 2008: Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session,
held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng
Gyungae, 2008: Proceedings of the CDM Conference held in Washington DC,
September 2008. Programme Officer – CDM Registration and Issuance,
UNFCC Secretariat.
UNDP, 2008: Human Development Report 2007/2008
http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_QAT.html
Al-Mulla, 2009: Climate Change and Human Development in Qatar: Issues,
Challenges and Opportunities. Human Development Report on Sustainable
Development. Qatar National Vision 2030, UNDP, GSDP.
UNEP, 2008: Report of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the Vienna Convention and the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
http://ozone.unep.org/Meeting_Documents/mop/20mop/MOP-20-9E.pdf
Peninsula Qatar, 2008: Online article – Qatar Moves to Cut Gas missions.
http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=local_news&month
=august2008&file=local_news200808194423.xml. Accessed October 2008
Doha Bank, 2008: Personal Communication on Emerging Carbon Emission
Trading in Qatar.
WRI, 2007: CCS Guidelines: Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture,
Transport, and Storage. Washington, DC: WRI.
U.S. DOE/NETL, 2007: Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and
Program Plan. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq
15
MIT, 2007: The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World.
Cambridge, MA. http://web.mit.edu/coal
IOGCC, 2005: Carbon Capture and Storage – A Regulatory Framework for the
States. IOGCC CO2 Geological Sequestration Task Force, Kevin Bliss, editor.
IPIECA /API, 2007: Oil and Natural Gas Industry Guidelines for Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Projects. Part II: Carbon Capture and Geological Storage
Emission Reduction Family.
www.ipieca.org/activities/climate_change/downloads/publications/CCSFINAL_merged.pdf
SPE, 2008: Proceedings of the SPE Middle East Health Safety Security and
Environment (MEHSSE) Conference and Exhibition. Carbon Capture and
Storage: The Key To Sustainable Development. StatoilHydro.
MASDAR, 2009: Information on the UAE Government CCS projects in
Abu Dhabi. www.masdaruae.com
WEC, 2007: Carbon Capture & Storage: a WEC “Interim Balance”. World
Energy Council Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems Committee (CFFSC).
http://www.worldenergy.org/work_programme/technical_programme/tec
hnical_committees/cleaner_fossil_fuel_systems/default.asp
IPCC, 2005: Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.
Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer (eds.)].Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2005.
CO2 Capture Project Phase 1
(http://www.co2captureproject.org/technologies/tech_index.htm
Wright, 2008: CO2 Monitoring by Satellite at In Salah. In Proceedings of the
7th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration. May 5–8,
Pittsburgh, PA.
16
Figures
Figure 1: Qatar and Worldwide CO2 Emissions
Figure 2: Overall CCS Process Chain
Figure 3: Current and Planned Global CCS Projects
Figure 4: CO2 Capture Processes and Technologies
Figure 5: CO2 Storage Options
Figure 6: CO2 Monitoring Options during Storage
Figure 7: Schematic of Acid Gas Injection at RasGas
17
Figure 1: Qatar and Worldwide CO2 Emissions
Source: UNDP (2008)
18
Figure 2: Overall CCS Process Chain
Source: IPIECA / API (2008)
19
Figure 3: Current and Planned Global CCS Projects
Source: WEC (2007)
20
Figure 4: CO2 Capture Processes and Technologies
Adapted from IPCC (2005)
21
Figure 5: CO2 Storage Options
Adapted from CO2 Capture Project Phase 1
Figure 6: CO2 Monitoring Options during Storage
Source: Wright (2008)
22
Figure 7: Schematic of Acid Gas Injection at RasGas
Acid Gas
Removal Unit
Inlet Facilities
Unit
Offshore
Onshore
Condensate
UCARSOL
Acid Gas
24% H2S
74% CO2
Acid Gas injection Unit
Meter
Check valve
Acid Gas
injection
Av. 80 MMscfd
Source: RasGas Company Limited.
23
Arab formation
Sweet
gas