IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME
MINUTES OF THE 35th EXCO MEETING
Gold Coast, Australia, 21st – 22nd April 2009
PRESENT
Dr Kelly Thambimuthu
(Chairman)
Dr John Carras
Mr Theodor Zillner
(Chair) Centre for Low Emission Technology
Mr Bill Reynen
Mr Doug Cambell
Dr Malcolm Wilson
Dr Jochen Seier
Dr Makoto Akai
Dr Kemeichiro Nagawa
Mr Trevor Matheson
Mr Trygve Riis
Dr Fuad Siala
Dr Anthony Surridge
Dr Hee-Moon Eum
Miss Mónica Lupión
Mr Sven-Olov Ericson (Vice Chair)
Dr Gunter Siddiqi
Mr Erik H Lysen
Mr Peter Versteegh
Miss Ruth Hampton
Mr Philip Sharman
Mr Bill Koppe
Mr Richard Rhudy
Mr John Wilkinson
Mr Fumihiro Ito
Mr Tsukasa Kumagai
Dr Johannes Heithoff
Mr Gabriel Marquette
Dr Tom Mikus
Dr Helle Brit Mostad
CSIRO Energy Technology
Australia
Ministry of Transport, Innovation & Austria
Technology
Natural Resources Canada
Canada
Nova Scotia Power Inc
Canada
University of Regina
Canada
Projektträger Jülich
Germany
AIST
Japan
RITE
Japan
CRL Energy Ltd
New Zealand
The Research Council of Norway
Norway
OPEC
SANERI
South Africa
KEPRI
South Korea
CIUDEN
Spain
Ministry of Sustainable Development
Sweden
Swiss Federal Office of Energy
Switzerland
Utrecht Centre for Energy research
The Netherlands
SenterNovem
The Netherlands
BERR
UK
ALSTOM
CIAB
EPRI
ExxonMobil
JGC
JGC
RWE
Schlumberger
Shell
StatoilHydro
IEA GHG
Mr John Gale
Mr Neil Wildgust
Mr Tim Dixon
Dr Stanley Santos
Dr John Topper
Mr Keith Burnard
Australia
IEA GHG
IEA GHG
IEA GHG
IEA GHG
IEA EPL
IEA
1
Observers
Mr Clement Yoong
Mr Jim Craigen
Mr John Karas
Mr John Kaldi
Mr Nick Otter
Mr Bob Durie
Dr Anthony Tarr
Dr François Kalaydjian
Mr Eemeli Tsupari
Mr Chris Baker
Prof Krzysztof Warmuzinski
Ms Liesl Halley
Mr Anders Johansson
Mr Lewis Jeffery
Dr Fiona Wild
Mr Jack Parkes
Ms Priscilla Yip
Martin Burke
Dept. of Resources, Energy and Tourism
Australian Coal Research Ltd.
Dept. of Resources, Energy & Tourism
CO2CRC
Global Carbon Capture & Storage Institute
IEA GHG Australian Consortium
Zerogen
IFP
VTT
Coal Association NZ
Polish Academy of Sciences
Sasol
Swedish Energy Agency
BP
BP
EPRI
EPRI
Global Carbon Capture & Storage Institute
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
France
Finland
New Zealand
Poland
South Africa
Sweden
Danish Energy Agency
Vattenfall
VTT
FZJ
CRL Energy Ltd
US Department of Energy
BG Group
BP
Chevron
CEZ
ENI
Repsol YPF
StatoilHydro
European Commission
Statkraft
Denmark
Denmark
Finland
Germany
New Zealand
USA
UK
UK
USA
Australia
Apologies
Mr Eric Bjőrklund
Mr Michael Madsen
Dr Ilkka Savolainen
Dr Jürgen-Friedrich Hake
Dr Rob Whitney
Dr Jay Braitsch
Mr David Ord
Mr Gardiner Hill
Mr Arthur Lee
Mr Ales Laciok
Mr Luca Zuccolo
Mr Martin Fasola
Mr Olav Karstad
Dr Peter Petrov
Mr Harald Rikheim
2
Norway
1.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
On behalf of the Executive Committee (ExCo) and the Australian Consortium, Kelly Thambimuthu
(Chair) welcomed Members, Sponsors and Observers and those attending the ExCo for the first time.
2.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda and motion for procedure at the meeting (Paper GHG/09/01 and GHG/09/02) were
adopted. An additional item to the agenda was added: following Item 9, Nick Otter will present on the
status of the GCCSI and the General Manager will give an update on the in-principle agreement for a
work program with the GCCSI for consideration and voting by members.
3.
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS (34th) MEETING
Papers GHG/09/03 and GHG/09/04 refer. John Gale stated that a small number of comments were
received and the minutes presented in the member’s papers had been amended to reflect these
comments.
Tony Surridge (South Africa) commented that the action to arrange a meeting on Sustainable
development and CCS was not recorded in the minutes. John Gale responded that it was noted on
page 21 of the minutes of the 34th ExCo and was also listed as Item 30 in the list of actions.
Members formally approved the minutes of the 34th meeting.
4.
MATTERS ARISING FROM THE 34th MEETING
Document GHG/09/05 refers.
5.
OPERATING AGENT REPORT
(No paper). John Topper reported on issues on staffing. Brendan Beck has handed in his resignation
and was joining the IEA in Paris. The IEA GHG was currently recruiting someone to work on capture
but that progress on his arrival to the UK was slow due to the new stringent UK immigration process.
Andrea Lacey has returned from maternity leave and is working from home in accordance with UK
Government rules on flexible working following maternity leave.
With regard to the finances, John Topper advised that there are no problems with the finances. The
most significant issue has been the worldwide recession, members funds deposited gather interest and
interest rates are low at the moment. The General Manager will discuss this in his budget review for
2009.
John Topper provided an update on the VAT situation, following up on the discussion at the last
ExCo. Following a review by a Tax Inspector, IEA GHG had been advised that it should be
deregistered for VAT. This would have an adverse financial impact on IEA GHG of about £50k per
year in lost VAT recovery. IEA EPL has hired, using an insurance provision, a tax expert to advise
them. As a result of their advice, a letter outlining a strong counter case has been presented to UK HM
Customs & Excise. John Topper indicated that there is a precedent, in that the IEA CCC is VAT
exempt as a result of a ruling made in the 1990’s. A response from HM Customs & Excise is awaited,
but that response is not expected to arrive quickly. Members will be advised as and when there are any
new developments.
Action 1: Operating Agent/General Manager
Bill Reynen advised that Canada would be happy to support the case in any way they can. John
Topper thanked members for their support and if it was needed IEA GHG would call on members to
assist.
6.
PROGRESS REPORT
Document GHG/09/06 refers. John Gale provided an overview of activities in the last 6 months
following the previous ExCo.
3
Staffing
John Gale reported that in addition to the Operating Agents report; John Davison had now returned to
work with IEA GHG on a part time basis; a graduate secondee (fully funded) had been with IEA GHG
for 3 months and was making a useful contribution. Monica Lupion from CUIDEN (Spain) will also
join IEA GHG for a 3 month secondment. John Gale invited members to suggest ideas for future
secondees.
Action 2: Members
Membership issues,
John Gale reported that the formalities of membership for CIAB and JGC were now complete.
ENEL had also been invited to join by members at the last ExCo (34th, Washington, USA) but their
membership had been held up by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in IEA who were insisting that
ENEL should join as a Contracting Party and not as a sponsor because in the OLC’s eyes ENEL were
an Italian state owned company. A letter had been sent by the OLC to John Topper as Operating agent
for both IEA CCC and IEA GHG and John Gale at IEA GHG setting out the OLC’s position regarding
stated owned industries. John Topper commented that both IEA GHG and IEA CCC had several state
owned companies that had been accepted by the CERT as sponsors to these agreements. He also
commented that the letter sent by the OLC contained some inconsistencies, omissions and errors of
fact. He stated that it was important to obtain clarification on what seemed to be a shift in policy by
the OLC.
John Topper and John Gale with agreement from the IEA CCC and IEA GHG ExCo Chairs will send
a letter responding to the OLC in time for the IEA CCC’s ExCo meeting on 17 May. Peter Cuntz the
chair of the CERT will also be present at the IEA CCC ExCo and a meeting will be held with him to
discuss the matter further and seek his opinion. John Gale and John Topper will continue to deal with
the situation in consultation with the two Chairmen. Note that subsequently at the IEA CCC ExCo it
was agreed with the CERT Chair that a paper would be presented to CERT on these issues in their
November meeting. The paper would cover both IEA GHG and IEA CCC points and issues and will
be prepared by John Topper and cleared by both sets of ExCo members before sending to the IEA for
dissemination to CERT members and within the Secretariat. John Topper would be in attendance at
the CERT meeting to present the views of the two IA’s.
Action 3: Operating Agent/General Manager
Brazilian membership was still awaited but was progressing very slowly.
With regard to Chinese membership, John Gale is working through the IEA NEET liaison office in
China and with Keith Burnard at IEA to try and progress Chinese membership.
John Gale also indicated that the IEA has indicated that there might be interest from VTI in Russia in
joining the Programme. John Topper commented that VTI would be a perfect representative for Russia
in the IEA GHG. However he fell that were unlikely to have the financial capability to join as the
Contracting Party for Russia. He also commented that again there would be the need to determine
whether they could join as a sponsor or as a contracting party as they are state owned.
John Gale indicated that Bellona, an NGO, has enquired about membership, and he sought the
members’ views. Bill Reynen (Canada) supported Bellona becoming a member as did Phillip Sharman
(Alstom) and Johannes Heithoff (RWE). Ruth Hampton (UK) felt we should engage with NGO’s and
suggested that probably the best way to engage with them was to invite them to the technical forums
we organise alongside the ExCos.
4
Progress on technical programme delivery
(a) Technical studies
John Gale reported on study progress, 6 studies had been reported since that last ExCo; a further 6
were in the process of being reported. John commented that there had been a continual increase in the
average annual cost of the technical studies. Last year the average study cost was £59,000. Tony
Surridge (South Africa) asked why there was an increase in the cost of studies. John Gale advised that
the increase is a result of both increased complexity and inflation.
(b) Facilitating implementation
John Gale reported on the
attending/participating in.
external
meetings/groups
like
CSLF
that
IEA
GHG
is
Regarding the summer schools an issue had been raised about reporting. John Gale commented that
we did not write formal reports from the meetings but details of the presentations etc., from each
meeting could be found on the web site. He also commented that paper GHG/09/31 refers to IEA
GHG’s plans for expansion of the Summer School web site and advised members that information on
each summer school is available on the web site. Tony Surridge (South Africa) asked whether we
attempt to get feedback from the students. John Gale said that after each school the students get a
questionnaire and generally the feedback is extremely positive. The feedback is used to help refine the
next student programme.
(c) Facilitating international co-operation.
John Gale reported that one IRN meeting had been held since the last ExCo meeting and a workshop
on modelling had also been organised.
Fuad Siala (OPEC) asked whether the International Research Network (IRN) meetings are generally
open for participation. John Gale advised that there were no restrictions; they are open to nonmembers as the focus is on getting the right experts to the meetings. John Topper advised that research
networks were set up for technical experts to get together and co-operate in an appropriate
environment. They have been very successful but some of the membership is changing and a lot of
non-experts are interested in attending. Francois Kalaydjian (IFP-France) suggested that if attendance
was becoming a problem then we may need to go through a selection process and call for and review
applications like the SPE. John Topper advised this would be too onerous an obligation across all of
the annual network meetings.
Phil Sharman (Alstom) commented that CO2 purity is now a big topic in the oxyfuel network but it is
broader than that and asked if there had been any discussion on creating a network for this. John Gale
advised that it was discussed at the Ad Hoc Group for Strategy meeting, the results of this will be
presented later (See paper GHG/09/11). John Kaldi (CO2CRC, Australia) suggested that network
meetings could be extended from a 2 day meeting to a 3 day meeting with the third day being an open
day for media, students etc. John Gale agreed this was worth considering.
John Karas (DRET, Australia) commented that the Oxyfuel network is a major success but is growing
out of all proportion. In terms of the Asia Pacific Partnership programme a smaller more focussed
network which links in with the Oxyfuel network has been established.
On the issue of international collaborations John Gale said that IEA GHG was now involved with two
organisations which were both complimentary to the IRN activities, namely: CO2GeoNet and IPAC.
Bill Reynen (Canada) commented that there are many centres of excellence now being started up
around the world and the Programme needs to be careful as to how many of these we get involved
with. John Gale said his concerns were justified and in each case where collaboration was being
considered this would be brought to the ExCo for members’ consideration.
5
(d) Dissemination activities
The General Manager summarised the dissemination activities completed since the last meeting. He
commented that attending conferences was important but the number of meetings and demands on
IEA GHG were increasing.
John Wilkinson (ExxonMobil) asked if IEA GHG could outsource some of its activities to free up staff
time. John Gale commented that there was little that could be done to change the effort distribution,
without some radical way of restructuring the work programme was to be considered such as
outsourcing all the IRN network operations. However, John also felt that the members gained a lot of
useful input to the research programme from the networks as a result of the programme team members
being directly involved in the network organisation and operation.
John Topper indicated that he felt a lot of administrative effort was put into the preparation of the
ExCo meetings by the Programme team. In response to a question by Erik Lysen (The Netherlands)
he indicated that at least half a man year of effort goes into the ExCo preparations each year. A lot of
that effort goes into the preparation of the members folders and at the last meeting members also
requested the folder of presentations before the ExCo as well. John Gale said he would prefer to put
the effort into just one folder, a composite folder of papers and presentations. He suggested that he
produce such a composite brochure from this meeting for members to consider which was agreed.
Action4: General Manager
Fuad Siala (OPEC) commented that dissemination of activities is important but it might be possible
for the ExCo members to consider doing some of the representation of IEA GHG and help with
sharing the load. John Gale responded that this was an idea that warranted consideration.
7.
ANNUAL REVIEW 2008
Document GHG/09/07 refers. John Gale presented the Annual Review 2008 that has been sent around
to members prior to the ExCo. He said there was a general view that the IEA GHG image was looking
tired and so he had changed the look and style of the review considerably from previous years.
Feedback from members had been very complimentary. If members had any further comments they
were asked to get back to John Gale by end of April 2009.
Action 5: Members
8.
FINANCES
Papers GHG/09/08 and GHG/09/09 refer. John Gale presented the projected budget out turn for the
membership year 2008 and the proposed budget for the membership year 2009.
Bill Reynen (Canada) commented on the way John Gale showed the % of the budget on the
presentation was misleading and commented that when written as “30% marginally lower” needed to
be put into the context that it reflects 30% of total budget. John Gale agreed and clarified that it meant
30% of the total budget.
Peter Versteegh commented that the new budget should show a projected balance and /or be presented
as a profit and loss statement. John Topper commented that the ExCo members are supplied a simple
income/outgoings balance sheet. Audited accounts are done at the end of each UK tax year and are
supplied to members in the autumn ExCo.
Philip Sharman (Alstom) commented that paper GHG/09/09 showing 2008/09 is an error and should
reflect 2009/10. John Gale agreed and reminded members that had been sent an updated paper for
inclusion in their folder 3 weeks before the ExCo meeting.
Tony Surridge commented that it is hard to put the figures provided into context. It would be useful to
know how much is available to know if we are over or under committing ourselves so that members
can have some comfort in knowing we are a viable organisation. John Gale agreed and stated that
members have £1.4 million on deposit. In future this information will be presented to members. John
Topper commented that we have a positive cash flow and it is a conservative operating system. In
cash terms, IEA GHG is well off, especially at the beginning of the financial year.
6
Action 6: General Manager
The proposed budget for 2009/10 was unanimously approved by the members.
GHGT-9 Surplus
John Gale reported that there is a $400k surplus from GHGT-9 owed to IEA GHG. He proposed a
number of ways in which this surplus could be used. These options included: strengthening IEA
GHG’s capability to support future conferences, supporting developing country student participation at
future GHGT conferences and updating of IEA GHG’s databases.
Bill Reynen (Canada) commented that this is not the first surplus from a GHGT conference and that
future surpluses should be included in the strategic planning. He would like to see the surplus directed
toward the Summer School program or expanding the study programme. John Gale advised that this is
the first time a surplus has come back directly to the IEA GHG and he would prefer to treat this as a
one off situation because we cannot guarantee future GHGT conferences will generate such large
surpluses, especially if the current economic crisis continues. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) agreed with
this approach.
After extensive discussion, John Karras (DRET, Australia) proposed that half of the surplus funds
from the GHGT-9 be used to support the institutional development of the IEA GHG and the other half
for the development of the GHGT conferences/summer schools. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) also
proposed that the GHGT-9 surplus money be used to support a 20th anniversary booklet that reviews
the non-technical aspects and the contribution of many people to the development of CCS.
Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) moved that members give the General Manager the discretion to use the
GHGT-9 surplus money to support the institutional development of the programme and the conference
series and the huge job they do to enhance our needs into the future.
Members agreed unanimously to allow the General Manager to utilise the funds at his discretion.
Financial/budgetary issues.
Document GHG 09/10 refers. At the last ExCo meeting members agreed to move to one budgetary
cycle based on the UK financial year. The General Manager was asked to come back to the ExCo
with a plan to harmonise the subscription year (November to December) with the UK financial year
(March to April). John Gale proposed to members that the easiest approach was to extend the current
phase until March 2012 and to consider adding an extra one off payment to their membership
subscription for 2010/2011 to bring the subscription fees in line with the UK financial year.
Peter Versteegh (Netherlands) asked the General Manager to confirm that IEA GHG was proposing
that the current Phase 5 program be extended by 4 months. John Gale confirmed this was the case and
said he that he checked with the IEA OLC and had been advised that as long as there was member
agreement then Phase 5 could be extended as suggested.
Members agreed unanimously to extend Phase 5 by 4 months until March 2012.
Bill Reynen (Canada) commented that he would rather have one invoice covering the 12 months plus
the extra 4 months. There are more problems in paying a one-off invoice for a short period of 4
months. Erik Lysen (Netherlands) agreed with this approach. John Topper agreed that it would be
easiest for the IEA GHG to supply just one invoice for a 16 month period to members.
Members unanimously agreed to be invoiced for a one off period of 16 months. Any members that
feel they will have problems should contact the General Manager.
Action 7: Members
7
9.
AD HOC GROUP ON STRATEGY
Papers GHG/09/11, GHG/09/12, GHG/09/13 refer.
Membership Guidelines:
John Gale described, the current balance between Contracting parties and Sponsors, and outlined the
proposed membership guidelines for new Contracting Party and Sponsor members that had been
drafted by the Ad Hoc strategy group.
Following extensive discussion by the members it was agreed that the General Manager would take
due note of the comments made by members, modify the document accordingly and recirculate it for
members comments before the next ExCo meeting.
Action 8: General Manager
Outline Strategy for Phase 6
Document GHG09/13 refers. John Gale presented the draft strategy outline developed by the Ad Hoc
strategy group.
After extensive discussion, it was agreed that the General Manager would circulate the document so
that members could provide written input to the draft strategy before the next ExCo meeting.
Action 9: General Manager
In terms of the IRNs, consideration should be given to a new Research Network on Social Science
around Public Communication on CCS. Others network activities that could be considered include
cross cutting issues such as corrosion and impurities. Jochen Seier noted that in Germany a large
collaboration project has been agreed on corrosion and it is working really well. It would be good to
have an international exchange platform.
GCCSI
(No paper). Nick Otter briefed the meeting on the GCCSI (slides available on members web site for
members reference),
Malcolm Wilson (Canada) asked if the GCCSI had worked out how it will interact with groups like
the IEA, CSLF etc. Nick Otter said that the GCCSI is in the process of discussions with different parts
of the IEA and other organisations, also that they are currently in internal discussion on how they will
engage with and support work of such organisations. He emphasised that GCCSI will be focused on
taking projects forward and getting them demonstration ready.
Bill Reynen (Canada) commented that there is a real international opportunity to help avoid
duplication in the deployment of CCS technology.
John Topper asked whether the GCCSI will assist the Clinton Foundation by helping to finance their 3
projects. Nick Otter answered that it will be at two levels; GCCSI will provide finance for resourcing
their projects and provide support for connection to other projects and organisations.
Francois Kalaydjian (IFP – France) asked if GCCSI will link with the EU ZEP and other platforms in
Europe. Nick Otter confirmed that it was GCCSI’s intention to work with the EU ZEP.
IEA GHG Interactions with the GCCSI
(No paper slides available). Subject to members agreement John Topper and John Gale will enter into
negotiations on an agreement with the GCCSI. The IEA GHG will become a research provider to
GCCSI. As part of this agreement IEA GHG will also become a founder member of GCCSI which in
turn will become a sponsor of IEA GHG after they become a properly incorporated not-for-profit
company limited by guarantee – expected to be after 1 July 2009. The cost of joining the GCCSI is
zero. It is proposed that GCCSI would become a member of IEA GHG for the next 3 years until the
end of Phase 5. GCCSI will contribute £1.2M over three years to support a number of specific tasks.
These tasks include:
8




Participating in the development of the Global Atlas, by providing datasets (Phases 1&2), the
R, D&D Database and Emissions Database, which are to be updated and redesigned to be
incorporated into the Atlas (Phase 3).
Funding an ‘Impurities’ study,
GCCSI will support Phase 1b of the current work of the ‘what we have learnt’ study and the
repeat of phases 1a and 1b in two years.
Education and Communication. GCCSI will: sponsor three Summer Schools, support the
developing country student mentoring programme at GHGT-10, and support the establishment
of the IEA GHG Research Network on Public Communications and their work to develop key
messages for key stakeholders from existing IEA GHG material, which will be a building
block for later GCCSI work.
The GCCSI will fund some resources (two technical staff and one administrative) and provide direct
financial support to studies, with a ring-fenced budget, and with results from the work undertaken
reported to IEA GHG members.
The benefits to the IEA GHG are in expanding the work programme at no cost to members and this
arrangement provides an avenue to co-operate with GCCSI. The disadvantages will be an increased
administration work load including more complicated finances and some disruption to staff as offices
are moved around. John Gale added that the extra administrative support person would help offset
administration issues and he would do his best to minimise any disruption in the office.
In general members were very supportive of this proposal. Points of clarification requested by a
number of members included the following:
 Will GCCSI sit on the ExCo of the IEA GHG at their meetings? John Gale stated that GCCSI
would have a seat at the ExCo like any other member. He added that both he and the
Chairman had been invited to attend the GCCSI launch meeting held just before this ExCo.
 Will GCCSI act as any other sponsor and have the same voting rights? John Gale confirmed
that this was the case.
 Will all GCCSI members have access to our studies and is this a problem? John Gale stated
that this would be the case and was the situation was that same as for other members like, the
EC, OPEC and CIAB. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) commented that the Programmes reports
are widely available in any case.
 How many studies will GCCSI fund and will members get access to these? John Gale said
that so far GCCSI has only indicated it will fund the impurities study proposed in this voting
round, but that it might identify others it wants to support in the future. GCCSI will have the
opportunity to suggest study ideas as do all members and members will get full access to the
GCCSI funded studies.
With regard to membership of GCCSI Nick Otter said that foundation membership is open until 1st
July after which it will no longer be a government owned initiative. Thereafter, it will be a non-profit
making company, incorporated under Australian law. They would like to see a balance of
organisations and countries involved. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) said IEA GHG as proposed would
be a foundation member until July 1st 2009 then we will have to elect to become a signed up member
with a limited liability of no more than AUD $10 as is intended to be proposed in the articles of
incorporation of the GCCSI.
Kelly Thambimthu (Chair) proposed the following actions for members to vote upon.
(a)
Members agree in principle to the proposed co-operation agreement with GCCSI.
(b)
Members agree to invite GCCSI to be a sponsor of IEA GHG and for the General Manager to
expedite the formal procedures for GCCSI membership (once it becomes a public company) and to
complete negotiations on the terms and conditions of membership on behalf of the Executive
Committee.
Action 10: General Manager
9
(c)
Members agree for IEA GHG to join GCCSI as a foundation member.
Action 11: General Manager
(d)
Members to agree that the General Manager and the Operating Agent (John Topper) can
proceed to negotiate a formal contract and implement the partnership with GCCSI.
Action 12: General Manager
All actions were unanimously approved by the members.
10.
COMPLETED ACTIVITES
What have we learnt from demonstration projects – current status?
Paper GHG/09/14 refers. Tim Dixon presented the results of this study by the IEA GHG team. A
number of points of clarification were raised by members:
 Were impurities reported as part of the questionnaire? Tim Dixon clarified that they were not
 Were the responses from the projects that have the most experience or are they from the less
experienced projects as well? Tim Dixon confirmed that there was generally a better response
from the longer running projects.
 Is it possible, with support of the GCCSI, to start looking at broadening the definition to
smaller scale demos? Tim Dixon confirmed that it was
 What does the figure on net storage represent? Tim Dixon clarified that the net storage term
allows for CO2 recycling in CO2-EOR. Dehydration was not included in the questionnaire.
Energy for capture and injection was also not taken into account
 Is there any more information on hydrate problems? It was agreed that IEA GHG would
respond to the member concerned on this point.
Action 13: General Manager
Trygve Riis (Norway) commented that a network will be setup in Europe that is similar to what IEA
GHG will be doing in phase 2. Tim Dixon noted that the IEA GHG has held a meeting with DNV the
operators of that network and they have asked us to share these findings to kick start their network
events. DNV don’t have any projects up and running yet to share their learning’s from.
Heath and safety of CCS
Paper GHG/09/15 refers. Tim Dixon presented an overview of the results of this study by HSE, on
behalf of Mike Haines who project managed the study. A number of points of clarification were raised
by members:
 What are the risks related to mercury? Tim Dixon responded that this was explained in detail
in the report
 Did the study model escape of CO2? - Tim Dixon commented that there wasn’t any real data
on escape modelling to refer to.
Fumihiro Ito (JGC) suggested that they would like to see natural hazards included. Tim Dixon
responded that this was not covered in the scope of the work that is now finished.
Removal of Impurities from CO2
Paper GHG/09/16 refers. Stanley Santos gave an overview of the study. A number of points of
clarification were raised by members:
 Is the CO level determined on the type of burner? Stanley stated that it was.
 What is the reference base case used? Stanley confirmed that a Capex increase of 20% was
used as the base case.
John Karas (DRET, Australia) commented that there are thousands of miles of CO2 pipelines in the
USA and there is little scope to change their current specifications. It comes down to capture plants
having to meet those requirements. Even though there is an additional cost, the additional costs of
modifying the pipelines could be significantly greater than cleaning out and purifying the CO2 at the
capture plant.
10
Improved solvent scrubbing processes
Paper GHG/09/17 refers. Stanley Santos presented an overview of this study. The following point of
clarification was raised:
 Were the processes looked at in steady state? Stanley confirmed they were.
John Wilkinson (ExxonMobil) commented that if you are operating at steady state there is no mercury
issue, but if you are shutting down and starting up that is when mercury becomes an issue.
Phil Sharman (Alstom) commented that there are limitations in a study like this with novel cycles.
John Gale agreed that doing detailed assessments become difficult when the information is not
available in the public domain.
Jim Craigen (Australian Coal Research Ltd) commented that IEA GHG needs to be careful about
making sweeping statements on different capture technologies. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) reassured
everyone that this is intended to be an objective forum.
CO2 storage in gas fields
Paper GHG/09/18 refers. Neil Wildgust presented an overview of this study.
Several members expressed concerns about quoting the 1% leakage number because this may be
misinterpreted. This concern was noted and the overview would be modified to assuage members
concerns.
Action 14: General Manager.
A number of points of clarification were raised by members:
 Did the cost numbers developed for the cost curve include new pipelines and new wells? Neil
confirmed that this was correct.
 Were the costs based on reservoir characteristics or are they uniform assumptions? Neil
answered that they are uniform assumptions.
 Are there split costs for on and off shore? Neil confirmed that this was correct, the study
allowed for differences between off-shore and on-shore costs.
 Did the study allow for residual gas saturation? Neil confirmed that this was the case, by
converting from total recoverable gas reserves, not using total pore space.
Erik Lysen (Netherlands) commented that this study confirms the Dutch experience that the more you
study the less capacity you find. He also raised a word of caution on returning to the original pressure
– in the Netherland fields it will never go back to original pressure. The pressure will always be lower
by 10-20% to allow for some head room.
11.
REVISED STUDY PROPOSAL - CAPTURE IN IRON AND STEEL PLANT
Paper GHG/09/19 refers. John Gale described the background to this study so that members could
clearly understand what is being presented to them. At the 28th ExCo two studies were proposed and
voted on in the application of CCS in major manufacturing industries. One was on the cement
industry (this study has been completed) and the second was on the iron and steel industry. However,
IEA GHG had been unsuccessful in finding a contractor to undertake the latter study. At the 33rd
ExCo, members voted not to put the study on hold. However, IEA GHG has subsequently identified a
potential contractor in Sweden with assistance from Sven Olov Ericson (Sweden/Vice Chair). John
Gale proposed that the presentation is made and then when prioritisation exercise discussion is held
later in the meeting, members decide on whether this study should go ahead. Stanley Santos then
presented an overview of the study to members. The proposal is for the study to be undertaken over
24 months.
The decision on whether to proceed with the study was deferred until after the presentation of the
current study prioritisation exercise.
11
12.
STUDY PRIORITISATION
Paper GHG/09/20 refers. Tim Dixon stated that 12 proposals were sent to members for voting with 2
resubmitted from the previous voting round and 10 new proposals (4 of which were ideas from
members). Tim noted that proposal suggestions from members were up significantly from previous
ExCo’s and also that more members voted this time than previously. The top 6 proposals were
presented and he reminded members they also need to take into account the proposed iron and steel
study in their final deliberations. Tim informed members that the General Manager had made
provisions in the budget this financial year for 8 average sized studies plus 2 larger than average
studies. The impurities study will be funded through the GCCSI (if voted through by members) which
means the Programme can undertake a total of 11 studies this financial year.
Pressurisation and brine displacement issues for deep saline formation storage
Paper GHG/09/21 refers. Neil Wildgust noted that this proposal has arisen as an outcome from the
GHGT9 conference held in Washington. There is a concern about what is going to happen if there are
large multiple injections into a formation.
Several members indicated that this and the ground water study should be phased or
combined/reported together. John Gale agreed to consider this.
Bill Reynen (Canada) asked if there will there be money for new modelling to extend this study rather
than just going over old ground. Neil Wildgust said that the intention was to use new modelling data.
Technical economic evaluations of new processes for co2 capture
Paper GHG /09/22 refer. Stanley Santos presented an overview of the proposed study. The paper was
based on a proposal received from ADEME (France).
John Gale commented that IEA GHG had concerns whether we can physically do the report because
of confidentiality issues and suggested we put it on hold until such time that data is publicly available.
Richard Rhudy (EPRI) suspected it is too premature to do anything. He commented that there may not
be the technical information to do the study and we should park the report as suggest by the General
Manager. Helle Mostad (Statoil) and Doug Campbell (CEA – Canada) also agreed with this position.
Potential risks to potable groundwater from co2 storage
Paper GHG/09/23 refers. Neil Wildgust provided an overview of this proposed study. Groundwater is
one of the key environmental receptors and could be the primary receptor for a CO2 leakage pathway.
The following comments were noted:
 Bill Koppe (CIAB) suggested a new title for the study ‘Potential impacts to potable
groundwater’. He commented that we should not assume that impacts are always negative,
some maybe positive such as repressurisation of groundwater.
 Richard Rhudy (EPRI) suggested a new piece of modelling work by EPRI could feed into this
study.
 Francois Kalaydijan (IFP) asked if the study be based on a case study. Also, the methodology
used will be important because the conclusions will be region dependent. Neil Wildgust
confirmed that there would be at least one case study.
 John Carras (Australia) suggested this could be a larger than average study with 2 or more
cases studied in different regions
Barriers to CCS Implementation – capacity constraints
Paper GHG/09/24 refers. John Gale noted that such a study is a part of a broader assessment of the
barriers to the large scale implementation of CCS alongside other options for GHG mitigation such as
renewables. A lot of technology needs to be introduced to reduce emissions globally at the same time.
The deployment of all technologies could be constrained by the supply of equipment, expertise and
other general implementation delays. A related study by IEA CCC found supply constraints for Clean
Coal Technologies.
The following comments were received:
12




Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) commented that there should be links with this study and the IEA
World Energy Outlook, which will help scope the technology capabilities that will be
deployed. John Gale agreed.
Nick Otter (GCCSI) commented that such a study demonstrates the key roles of IEA GHG and
GCCSI. The IEA GHG study will indentify the potential barriers and GCCSI can help
overcome them.
John Wilkinson (ExxonMobil) commented that a number of professional societies have done
current and future capability work that could be tied into this study.
Jim Craigen (Australian Coal Research Ltd) commented that he couldn’t see what
distinguishes CCS from any other industry in their start up days and can’t see what this report
would bring other than stating the obvious. John Topper commented that building on what is
known will show us where critical points are and where the emphasis needs to be in breaking
the log jam for technology deployment.
Potential for biomass and CCS
Paper GHG/09/25 refers. Tim Dixon reviewed the background on this study looking at future emission
scenarios that may require the world to go to negative emissions technologies. There is only one
technology option that can do this and that is biomass with CCS. Groups such as Bellona are
promoting this concept of negative emissions. This study proposal is aimed at understanding the
realistic potential around biomass with CCS.
John Wilkinson (ExxonMobil) sought clarification that the CCS and biomass study lays within IEA
GHG’s remit. John Gale commented that here is a lot of political pressure on biomass with CCS and
this is just the sort of study IEA GHG can do to give balanced information on the topic of biomass
with CCS. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) commented that talk about negative emissions from biomass is
creeping into the IPCC discussions. The IEA GHG study would help to put it into context.
There were a number of points of clarification raised:
 Is biodiesel included? Tim Dixon noted that bio ethanol is included.
 Will the study include gasification and biomass/fossil fuel co-firing? Tim Dixon noted that the
intention was to explore 100% biomass usage. Other studies underway are looking at cofiring. It was noted that several other members also supported including co-firing in the study.
Sven-Olov Ericson (Sweden/Vice Chairman) commented that it is urgent to get this study going to
help the European renewable energy negotiations on legislation next year and it will also contribute to
the development of scientific consensus on the issue for the next IPCC report. The study should look
strategically at options and be flexible on whether it is biomass only. There are many options for cofiring. Do not be exclusive to biomass only.
Potential effects of CO2 waste stream impurities on geological storage
Paper GHG/09/26 refers. Neil Wildgust reminded members that GCCSI will fund this study. The
following points of clarification/comments were received:
 Will this extend to acid gas injection with large concentrations of H2S? Neil Wildgust said
that it was not the intention of the study to cover acid gas. For those interested, there is quite a
bit of western Canadian experience on acid gas injection in the public domain.
 Using the word waste in the title is not recommended because in some jurisdictions that
triggers unfavourable regulatory treatment.
Richard Rhudy (EPRI) added that if this study could help in clarifying what is a hazardous waste it
would be very useful.
Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) summarised the discussions. He proposed that Members agree to
undertake 5 studies as top priorities, but excluding the techno economic capture study. He also noted
that we will proceed with the study on capture in iron and steel plants discussed earlier.
The members unanimously agreed to proceeding with studies as outlined by the Chair.
13
Trygve Riis (Norway) indicated that the study on the Deep Removal of Amines (35-3) is very
important to Norway. He would like to hear comments and views from other members. John Gale
commented that the Ad Hoc Strategy Group did identify it as appropriate to do something on this
topic. John Topper said that there had been a number of papers on this topic recently in the CO 2
capture network meetings. There is some very important work underway in Norway and John
suggested Trygve provide him with some contacts and he will endeavour to hold a meeting of a small
expert group to discuss the issue and facilitate the sharing of information.
John Gale suggested that a workshop be held with the appropriate parties which then allow the
Programme to frame what needs to be done. Erik Lysen (Netherlands) strongly supported Norway’s
point of view and noted that a workshop is a good starting point. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair)
concluded that a workshop should be held first as proposed above before the program undertakes
further work in this area.
Action 15: General Manager.
13.
FUTURE VOTING & MEMBERS IDEAS FOR STUDIES
Members agreed to return all non selected proposals for future voting rounds. The proposal on
financing CCS needs to take into accounts activities by GCCSI in this area.
There were no suggestions made at this meeting for new studies. The General Manager will circulate a
request for new ideas from members shortly after the ExCo meeting as per standard practise.
Action 16: General Manager
14.
FEEDBACK FROM GHGT9 AND DIRECTION OF FUTURE CONFERENCES
Paper GHG/09/27 refers. John Gale outlined the outcomes from GHGT-9 and the discussions held
between the organising committees from GHGT-9 and GHGT-10 on how GHGT-10 should be
focused.
General points gained from GHGT-9 feedback were:
 GHGT9- had a big poster session and based on delegate feedback the discussion sessions will
be retained.
 A Summary report was produced for the first time which has been well received. and will be
continued for future conferences.
 A limited number of delegates had requested presentations be available on the web site as
well as papers. Both organising committees were against this because of the extra work load it
created.
 Delegates were in favour of holding a CCS Expo. This will be considered for GHGT-11and
possibly could be built into GHGT-10.
There were 1600 attendees at GHGT-9. The venue for GHGT-10 can hold up to 2000+ but it is felt
that the numbers will be around 1800.
A number of members also requested the presentations be made available. John Gale will refer this
back to the next GHGT-10 organising committee meeting for their consideration as it would be their
decision to implement.
Action 11: General Manager
John Gale proposed for future conferences that the local host will focus on local organisation issues in
conjunction with the local conference organiser and IEA GHG will run the Programme Committee.
This was agreed by members.
Regarding GHGT-11, John Gale asked if any organisation around the table who would like to host
GHGT-11 to let him know. Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) advised members that the GHGT-11 should
14
be held in the Asia Pacific Region. Kelly then asked John Gale to send information via email to
countries in the region to see if we can solicit interest.
Action 12: General Manager
15.
FEEDBACK ON MODELLING NETWORK MEETING
Paper GHG/09/28 refers. Neil Wildgust stated that the first workshop of this new network was held in
Orleans, France in February 2009 attracting over 100 delegates from 14 countries. A report will be
issued shortly and the presentations will be made available on the www.co2captureandstorage.info
web site. The network meeting was well received by all concerned.
16.
FEEDBACK ON PRACTICAL R&D ACTIVITIES
IEA GHG Weyburn-Midale Monitoring Project
Paper GHG/09/29 refers. Neil Wildgust gave an overview of the IEA Weyburn-Midale project. The
Weyburn team are structuring research to fill the gaps identified in the IPCC report on CCS published
in 2004/5. The IEA GHG has a MoU with the project and attends as a non-voting representative on
the Steering Committee (Tim Dixon) and also as a representative on the technical committee (Neil
Wildgust).
MoveCBM
Paper GHG/09/30 refers. Neil Wildgust gave a brief report on the EC supported MoveCBM project
which has now ended.
John Carras (Australia) said it is important that we see ECBM as a low emissions technology as
opposed to storage in coal. It is a niche opportunity and a technology in its infancy.
Francois Kalaydjian (IFP-France) noted that China is very interested in ECBM.
John Gale commented that there is definitely an opportunity for CO2-ECBM but how big it will be as
a storage option is not yet defined. As a storage option it will probably be regionally based.
17.
STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL WEBSITE UPDATES
Paper GHG/09/31 refers. Tim Dixon noted that two summer schools have been held to date and their
success is evident by the growing numbers applying to attend. This year’s summer school will be held
in August in Lorne, Australia and will be hosted by the CO2CRC.
Tim commented that we need to keep in contact and support the students who have attended. Among
other things, there has been a web discussion forum and a face book page set up. The benefits for the
students are that it keeps them in touch with their peers and industry. The web site also provides the
IEA GHG members with access to presentations, information on student activities and interactions and
possible recruitment opportunities.
The CSLF have a similar idea to set up an interactive website. There have been mutual discussions and
there is approval for co-operation to develop this joint website during 2009. John Gale noted that it
shows an ongoing collaboration with the CSLF as well as the GCCSI discussed earlier.
18.
FEEDBACK FROM THE COP/MOP AND STATUS OF CCS AND CDM
Paper GHG/09/32 refers. Tim Dixon provided members with a summary of the progress made
including CCS in the CDM.
Helle Brit Mostad (StatoilHydro) said they found the report Tim circulated after the COP meeting in
Poznan useful. In response to a question from Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair), Tim Dixon said that there
is nothing on the table about new mechanisms as yet.
Fuad Siala (OPEC) said that- at the last ExCo, members decided to try and organise some activities
regarding the financing of CCS projects in developing countries. Our decision was to wait to see what
happened at Poznan. What is the impact, do we wait until Copenhagen or is there a possibility of
15
going ahead? Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) commented that we were at an impasse, so it is a work in
progress. Clement Yoong (DRET, Australia) commented that a report was coming out in June from
the Asian Development Bank that might help this discussion.
Action 16:– General Manager
19.
IEA GHG INTERACTIONS WITH IEA
Paper GHG/09/33 refers. Tim Dixon provided a brief update to the members on interactions with the
IEA. We are continuing to work with IEA on the IEA Regulators Network, and continuing with web
conferences (webinars). One has been held on transport and safety, one on demonstration projects,
one on liability and insurance (chaired by IEA GHG) and recently one on financing and ETS
(suggested by IEA GHG). All meetings are recorded and presentations are available on the IEA
website.
IEA CCS Road mapping – a number of meetings have been held, IEA GHG is continuing to provide
input. The IEA CCS roadmap is now aiming to be ready for reporting to Ministers in October 2009.
John Topper commented that there is some confusion on road mapping. The WPFF decided to create
a global roadmap on coal. Initially this was looking at power generation, industrial uses, cement, steel
etc not just in OECD but in some developing countries as well. The IEA decided to do 18 roadmaps
with one of them on CCS. The IEA CCC is due to report to the WPFF on a coal road mapping
through to carbon capture exercise without including all the soft elements in the roadmap. The WPFF
road map is now in draft format and it will feed into the IEA’s compilation of the different roadmaps.
20.
MEMBERS ACTIVITIES
Fuad Siala presented on the OPEC strategy on CCS. Fuad Siala will provide a copy of the presentation
for distribution to the members.
Action 17: OPEC Member
Trevor Matheson (New Zealand) advised members that there is an activity taking place in New
Zealand just after the ExCo similar to the forum being held in Australia. A report will be produced
and made available to members
Action 18: General Manager
Erik Lysen (Netherlands) has managed the CATO project in the Netherlands over last 5 years and has
recently released a book on the program’s achievements, which last week was accepted by the
Government. The Netherlands Govt has now approved 5M Euros for a new program for the next 5
years with a focus on activities to support demonstration projects. He will disseminate copies of the
summary report for circulation to the members.
Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) noted that an international performance assessment centre (IPAC) has
been set up in Regina. Malcolm Wilson will speak about this at the forum tomorrow in Brisbane.
Please contact Malcolm if you can’t attend but would like information on this activity.
Tony Surridge noted that South Africa is also developing a coal roadmap. The South African Centre
for CCS had a signing ceremony for its charter this year. The Minister has given full support and the
centres activities are also supported by governments of Norway and UK and SASOL. There is a
conference planned for September when the Centre will be launched. A draft of a storage atlas will
also be available in April next year.
16
21.
DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS
Paper GHG/09/34 refers. John Gale outlined the dates and locations of the next meetings, as follows:
 the 36th ExCo will take place from the 7th to the 9th of October 2009 in Zurich, Switzerland
hosted by Swiss Federal Office of Energy and Alstom
 the 37th ExCo will take place in Ponferrada, Spain in 9-10 April 2010 hosted by CUIDEN.
 38th ExCo will take place in The Hague, Netherlands, 17-18 September hosted by Ministry of
Economic Affairs.
 39th ExCo location is to be advised.
 40th ExCo will be held in London as it will host the 20th anniversary celebrations of the IEA
GHG.
 41st ExCo may be held in Norway.
Bill Reynen (Canada) said that Canada would be glad to host the 39th ExCo and the Chair and
members accepted his proposal to do so.
22.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Kelly Thambimuthu (Chair) thanked the Australian Consortium for hosting this ExCo, which he
commended as very successful and declared the meeting closed.
Fuad Siala (OPEC) passed on the thanks of the members and sponsors of the program to Kelly
Thambimuthu (Chair) and his team for hosting this ExCo meeting.
.
17