CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

Table of contents
Preface
Summary
Background
Global warming
How to achieve necessary reductions
Capture technologies
Post-combustion capture
Removing CO2 using amines
Removing CO2 using ammonia
Pre-combustion capture
Oxy-fuel combustion
Future technologies
Chemical looping combustion
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC)
ZEG
Hydrogen membrane reactor
CO2 capture from industrial sites
Cement production
Oil and gas processing
Steel Production
Ammonia production
Other processes
Bio CCS
Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU)
Clustering
Transporting CO2
Ship transport
Pipeline transport
Risks and safety
Challenges
CO2 infrastructure and transport in the North Sea
Carbon storage
Storage potential in geological formations
Experiences in CO2 storage
Storage safety
Side effects of CO2 storage
Monitoring
CO2 in enhanced oil recovery
Carbon capture and storage is safe, accessible and necessary
References
Summary
In climate change humanity is facing its greatest challenge. Our energy production is dominated
by fossil fuels and, if the emissions from using these fuels continue to rise, the results will be
dramatic.

Among the consequences will be the melting of polar ice and rising sea levels, flooding and
more ex- treme weather, loss of plant and animal species diversity, deforestation, and adverse
effects on food and water supply. Even by limiting global warming to 2°C, we will not mitigate
serious effects on ecosystems and regions of the Earth.

Greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 85 percent to avoid the most serious
consequences of anthropogenic climate change. Important and well-established solutions are a
shift from fossil fuel to renewable sources of energy - such as wind, bio-energy and solar power
- and efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy demand.

However, this is not sufficient to achieve the necessary emissions cuts within a short enough
timeframe. According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook (WEO
2011), the most opti- mistic picture - the 450ppm scenario - puts the share of fossil fuels in the
energy mix as declining from 81 percent to still as much as 62 percent in 2035.

Of course, prognoses are only predictions made on assumptions. Therefore, it is possible to get
more comprehensive climate policies. The question is whether it is possible to cover both the
growing de- mand for energy and to achieve the needed large reduction in emissions of
greenhouse gases based on renewable energy and increased energy efficiency alone by 2030.

According to the scenarios in IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011, and to calculations of IEA, the
long eco- nomic lifetimes of much of the world’s energy-related capital stock mean that there
is little scope for de- laying action if we are to reach the 2°C target. This leaves very little
additional room for emitting green- house gases from additional sources.

Wind power is the fastest growing renewable energy source, besides hydropower and bio-
energy. In Europe - the leading region in wind power development - about 9.3GW of new wind
power was estab- lished in 2010, reaching a total installed effect of 84GW. In a normal year,
this would produce around 180TWh of electricity (European Wind Energy Association, EWEA
2011). To cover the expected growth in energy consumption, this capacity would have to be
installed 145 times over. To replace all fossil energy with wind power, that multiplier is 6200.

Even given a massive change in energy policy, it is technically highly unlikely that the necessary
increas- es in renewable energy production and energy efficiency can be achieved. Therefore,
large amounts of fossil fuels will continue to be used for decades to come. This makes rapid
development of large-scale carbon capture and storage essential if we are to cut greenhouse
gas emissions fast enough.

CO2 capture
CO2 can be captured from large emission sources, such as power generation and industry. The
technol- ogy can also contribute to reducing emissions from transport, by powering vehicles
with electricity and hydrogen produced by facilities deploying CCS.

The technology to separate CO2 from other gases has been in industrial use for more than 80
years, and there are large-scale CCS projects already in operation worldwide. There are also
several new projects under construction. In fact, there are now at least 15 projects operating
and/or soon to be finalised. The total CO 2 storage capacity of all these projects is more than 33
million tonnes a year. This is broadly equiv-
alent to preventing the emissions from more than six million cars from entering the atmosphere
every year.

The most mature CO2 capture technology separates CO 2 from the exhaust gas after combustion,
known as post-combustion separation. A chemical is used to bind CO 2 and separate it from the
other flue gases. Several plants use post-combustion technology to capture CO 2 for industrial
use. A major advantage of this technology is that it can be retrofitted to the many emission
sources that already exist.

There are two other main groups of capture technologies - pre-combustion separation and
combustion with pure oxygen, or oxy-fuel.

Transporting CO2
Extensive experience exists in carrying CO2 by pipeline to sites where it can be used in other
processes. For example, in the USA tens of millions of tonnes of CO 2 are transported to oilfields
every year for en- hanced oil recovery (EOR) projects. Pipeline is the most economical method
of transporting CO2 for dis- tances of up to 1000-1500km, depending on specific conditions and
the volume transported. Beyond this distance, transport by ship can be more economical (Zero
Emission Platform, ZEP, 2011).

The transport of CO2 is similar to and no more challenging than the transport of hydrocarbons
such as natural gas, petroleum gas and condensates, which are routinely transported by all
carriers under a wide variety of conditions.

Safe storage
The final phase of CCS is safely storing the captured CO 2 underground. Large geological
formations exist that have stored CO2 and natural gas for millions of years.

The IPCC special report on CCS (2005) suggested that the technical potential for storing CO 2 in
different geological formations could be at least 2000 billion tonnes, and may even be
considerably higher.

Captured CO2 can be stored in a variety of geological settings - in sedimentary basins, in

depleted oil and gas fields, saline aquifers (underground rock formations containing fluids), and
deep unmineable coal seams. These can occur within both on and offshore sedimentary basins.

Storage safety is a fundamental aspect of carbon capture and storage. The stored CO 2 must not
leak and cause harm. So, before a site is chosen, the geological setting must be studied to
ensure the overlying cap rock will provide an effective seal and that there is sufficient capacity
and a permeable structure. Techniques developed by the oil and gas exploration industry are
suitable for this characterisation of potential CO2 storage sites.

Monitoring is also an important part of the overall risk management strategy for geological
storage projects.
Background
Many years have passed since the Rio conference of 1992, when world leaders agreed to take
action to prevent dangerous man-made climate change. In 2012, the first Kyoto commitment
period comes to an end, 15 years after the Kyoto Protocol to tackle global warming was
established.

The facts for increased emissions in this period, both since Rio and Kyoto are
depressing.Without much more effective mitigation efforts, the world is heading towards a 4°C
temperature rise – nearly the dou- ble of the maximum 2°C target, which the world leaders
have agreed upon.

Global warming
In climate change, humanity is facing one of its greatest challenges. Despite the increasing
awareness of the severe consequences of climate change, global CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels
in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990 (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

The United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
IPCC does not carry out research on its own, its main activity being the evaluation of available
research on climate change. Its first report was presented in 1990 and warned about the
consequences of global warming. IPCC’s fourth assessment report, published in 2007, stated
that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthro- pogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations.”

The IPCC predicts that in the period 1990–

2100 the global average temperature will
increase by between 1.4°C and 5.8°C due to
human activity. Global warming and rising of
sea levels will con- tinue for decades, even if
the concentration of greenhouse gases is
stabilised immediately (IPCC 2007d).

All research and observations which have

been published after the fourth assessment
report show that global climate change is
continuing at a pace even faster than
expected, i.e. the observa- tions lie in the
upper scores of IPCCs projections in the third
and fourth assessment reports from 2001 and
2007.
Figure 1: Global sea level from 200 A.D. to 2100
A.D. Source: Dahl-Jensen, 2009
Figure 1 shows that the projections for
sea level rise have been adjusted to be
three times higher than the IPCC (2007)
projections.

Conseque
nces
During the UN’s international climate change negotiations in Cancun in 2010, most countries
agreed upon the target to limit the global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial
levels.

The higher the global temperature, the more dramatic are the consequences and fewer the
possibili- ties of adaptation. A 2°C rise in the global average temperature means significantly
higher increases in certain regions: the Arctic will experience an increase of about 5°C to 7°C
degrees due to accelerating
heating mechanisms. With a temperature rise of 3°C, the melting of the ice cap on Greenland
will cause a two-metre global sea level rising.

From 1979 to 2005, the world has seen a 20 percent reduction of sea ice in the Arctic, and the
melting is accelerating. The area of Arctic sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent
greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models. Figure 2 shows the area of
surface melting across the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1978 to 2008.

Within this century the quantity of water

stored in glaciers and snow will be reduced.
This will dra- matically reduce access to
water in regions with mountainous water
supplies. One out of six peo- ple on Earth live
in such regions. Around 75-250 million people
in Africa will experience a similar loss in
access to drinking water because of the
changing climate.

The Himalayas will be exposed to frequent

floods, and fresh water quality and access will
be adverse- ly affected within the next two or
three decades. Central and south-eastern
parts of Asia will expe-
rience reduced availability to Figure 2: Area of surface melting across the Greenland Ice
Sheet, as inferred from satellite observations of the surface
drinking water and parallel rapid temperature. Source: Copenhagen Synthesis Report, 2009.
population growth, causing a billion
people to be severely affected.

Around 20-30 percent of all plant and animal species will be exposed to greater risk of
extinction with a rise in temperatures of 1.5°C to 2.5°C. Such an increase in temperatures will
lead to immense changes in the structure and functions of ecosystems, with a negative impact
on biological diversity and food and water supplies. A rise in temperatures will convert tropical
rainforests to savannah in the eastern parts of the Amazon.

The impact on food production will vary strongly from region to region. Africa will experience a
decrease in areas suitable for agriculture and the growth season will be compressed. This
continent is also one of the most exposed to degradation of food security, since the increase in
water temperatures in the great lakes will cause damage to fisheries.
Figure 3: Shares of energy sources in total global primary energy supply in 2008 (Total: 492 EJ). Source: IPCC 2011
Coastal areas are at risk of erosion and rising sea levels. Adaptations to climate change are
particularly challenging in coastal regions in developing countries, where a lack of resources
reduces the number of practical options.

The health of millions of people will be affected by climate change through increased
malnutrition, mor- tality rates and illnesses caused by heat waves, floods, storms, fires and
droughts, and also through a pos- sible increase in the spread of certain diseases.

Where do the Greenhouse gas emissions come from?

From 1970 to 2004, emissions of greenhouse gases (including all gases regulated by the Kyoto
Protocol, namely CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC and SF6) increased from 28.7 gigatonnes to 49Gt CO 2
equivalents (CAIT 2009).
The nt fossil
energ (IPCC fuels
y 2007a accou
sector ). In nted Forestry 17.4%
had 2010, for 81
the global perce
larges CO2 nt of
t emissi the
Agriculture
growt ons world’ 13.5%
h in from s
global energ prima
emissi y con- ry
ons: sumpt energ
145 ion y
perce were supply
nt more in
since than 2008,
1970. 30 while
Within billion the
the tonne share
same s (IEA, of
period WEO renew
the 2011). able
emissi This is energ
ons an y
from increa sourc-
the se by
trans- more
port than
sector 40
increa perce
sed by nt
120 comp
perce ared
nt and to
in- 1990
dustri (EIA
al 2011).
emissi
ons by On a
65 global
perce basis
 Energy supply 25.9%
Waste and wastewater 2.8%

Transport 13.1%
Residential and
es was only 13 Industry 19.4% commercial buildings
7.9%
percent, as
illustrated in
figure 3. At the
same time,
renewable energy
contributed
approximately 19
percent of global
electricity
supply, of which 16 percent was three quarters of increased
hydropower and 3 percent other emissions will take place in
renewable sources (IPCC 2011). undeveloped and newly
industrialised countries.
Prognos However, emissions per
capita in industrialised
es countries (10-15 tonnes
The next CO2/ capita) will remain
decades will see a continuing rise in considerably higher than in
emissions of greenhouse gases if no undeveloped and newly
significant policy changes are adopted. industrialised countries (3-5
The IEA predicts that world primary tonnes) in 2030 (IPCC
demand for energy will increase by one 2007a, IPCC 2007c).
third between 2010 and 2035 if recent
government policy commitments are The IPCC published in 2011 a special
implemented in a cautious man- ner. In report on renewable energy. This report
the same period, energy-related CO2 presents over 160 existing
emissions will increase by 20 percent,
following a trajectory consistent with a
long-term rise in the average global
temperature in excess of 3.5°C.

The expanding economies of

developing countries are an
important source of the
expected increase of energy
requirements and
emissions. Around 90
percent of the projected
growth in global energy de-
mand will take place in
developing countries (non-
OECD economies); China
alone accounts for more
than 30 percent of this
projected growth (IEA, WEO
2011)Also the IPCC expects
considerable increase in
greenhouse gas emissions in
developing countries.

Between two thirds and

scientific scenarios, which have been reviewed on the possible penetration of renewables by
2050, with four scenarios analysed in-depth. These four were chosen in order to represent the
full range.

The most optimistic of the four foresees that renewable energy could account for as much as 77
percent of the world‘s energy demand by 2050, amounting to about 87,000 TWh of an annual
global energy consumption of 113,000 TWh. This scenario implies remarkable efforts within
energy efficiency: in 2008, global energy supply amounted to 137,000 TWh. Such a
development thus depends on a consistent cli- mate and energy policy among the world’s policy
makers (IPCC 2011).

While the scenarios arrive at a range of estimates, the overall conclusions are that renewables
will take an increasing slice of the energy market. The IPCC further states that the rising
penetration of renewable en- ergy could lead to cumulative greenhouse gas savings equivalent
to 220 to 560Gt CO2eq between 2010 and 2050 (IPCC 2011).

Wind and solar (photovoltaic) energy are the fastest growing renewables with respectively 32
percent and 53 percent yearly increases in 2009, but the basis for this growth is low (IPCC
2011). The IEA is more moderate in its renewable prognoses for development in its New Policies
Scenario (which assumes that recent government policy commitments are implemented in a
cautious manner).

The IEA assumes that the share of non-hydro renewables in power generation will increase from
3 per- cent in 2009 to 15 percent in 2035. Figure 5 shows the IEA’s estimates for world primary
energy demand until 2035 with rising shares of renewables, gas and nuclear energy (IEA 2011).

Figure 5: Shares of energy sources in world primary energy demand in the New Policies Scenario, IEA (2011)

How large reductions are needed?

At the COP15 in Copenhagen and COP16 in Mexico, the attending countries (with minor
exceptions) agreed upon 2°C as an overall target for a new international climate agreement,
after the first commit- ment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

To achieve the 2°C target, the concentration of all greenhouse gases must be stabilised at
between 400- 450 parts per million (ppm) CO 2e, according to IPCC’s fourth assessment report.
In order to remain below 2°C with 75 percent probability, global greenhouse gas gases should
be stabilised at 400ppm. In 2011, the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere was already 394
ppm, more than 100 ppm above pre-indus- trial level.
 The 2°C target also implies that the
global emis- sions must be reduced by
50-85 percent by 2050, compared to
1990 levels, and peak in 2020 at the
latest.

Figure 6 shows the trade-off between

emission reductions in Annex I
(developed) countries and non-Annex I
(developing) countries for the years
2020 and 2050. In (b), it becomes clear
that if the Annex I countries reduce
their emissions by 80- 95 percent
compared to 1990, the non-Annex I
countries will still have to reduce their
emissions by 70-75 percent compared to
their baseline in order to remain on the
450ppm path. The base- line is the
expected emission development, which
is calculated based on the different
coun- tries’ population growth,
economic growth etc.

How to achieve necessary

reductions
These challenges may seem
insurmountable, but an often ignored Figure 6: The trade-off in reductions in 2020 (a) and
fact is that many emission sources of 2050 (b) in Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries as a group
the future have yet to be built. This for three concentration stabilisation levels. The numbers
represent the averaged outcome over separate
means that we have a choice, and if we calculations for each of the six IPCC SRES baselines (IPCC
focus on building emission-free sites, SRES average). (Den Elzen and Höhne 2008)
emissions will even- tually be reduced.
Zero-emission solutions are no longer an
alternative but an obligation if the
worst climate changes are to be
avoided.

Prognoses show significant increases in

the emissions of CO2. Of course,
prognoses are only predictions made on
assumptions. Therefore, it is possible to
get more comprehensive climate
policies. The question is whether it is
possible to cover both the growing
demand for energy and to achieve the
needed large reduction in emis- sions of
greenhouse gases based on renewable
energy and increased energy efficiency
alone by 2030.
According to the scenarios in IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011, the long economic lifetimes of
much of the world’s energy-related capital stock mean that there is little scope for delaying
action if we are to reach the 2°C target. The IEA calculates that four-fifths of the total energy-
related CO2 emissions permis- sible by 2035 in the 2°C scenario are already “locked-in” by
capital stock (power plants, buildings, facto- ries, etc.) that either exists now or is under
construction and will still be operational by 2035. This leaves very little additional room for
emitting greenhouse gases from additional sources.

If internationally co-ordinated action is not taken by 2017, the IEA projects that all permissible
emissions in a 2°C scenario would come from the infrastructure then existing, so that all new
infrastructure from then until 2035 would need to be zero-carbon, unless emitting
infrastructure is retired before the end of its economic lifetime to make headroom for new
investment (IEA 2011).
Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment avoided in the power sector
before 2020, an additional $4.3 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the
increased emissions (IEA 2011).

Large emission sources from industry

Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuel power plants and industry will enable reduction of
green- house gas emissions that would otherwise go straight into the atmosphere. It will serve
as a decisive addition to the use of renewable energy and increased energy efficiency in cutting
emissions fast and efficiently.

The IEA perceives CCS as a key abatement option, accounting for 18 percent of emissions
savings in the 2°C scenario (i.e. 450ppm scenario) relative to the New Policies Scenario (IEA
2011).

Carbon capture is possible at large emission sources, such as fossil power plants and industry.
The IPCC special report on CCS from 2005 identifies near 8000 large emission sources worldwide
(IPCC 2005a).

These sources are dispersed over the entire globe, but four regions stand out: North America,
north west- ern Europe, the east coast of South-East Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. In the
coming century the number of large emission sources is assumed to rise, especially in south and
south-eastern parts of Asia. The number of sources for CCS in Europe will, however, decrease
slightly (IPCC2005b).

In the longer term, carbon capture can reduce emissions in the transport sector by changing
from petro- leum fuels to electric and/or hydrogen fuels for vehicles (IPCC 2005a).

IPCC emphasises CCS as a key technology to enable cuts in the emissions from energy
production and the industry. The most ambitious scenarios have CCS in addition to increased
focus on non-fossil energy sources, to achieve necessary emissions reductions (2007a).
Capture technologies
CO2 has been captured from industrial process streams for more than 80 years. It is also
captured in rela- tively large amounts for commercial uses in, for example, urea and ammonia
production, for the produc- tion of food grade CO 2 used in the brewery industry and in
greenhouses to maintain optimal CO 2 con- centrations. In Lubbock, Texas CO 2 was captured
from a gas fired power plant and used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) as early as 1980.
Extensive experiences from these processes and other CO 2 uses can be utilised to realise full-
scale carbon capture plants.

Capture technologies can be distinguished as three main categories, depending on what stage
of the process the CO2 is removed.

Figur 7: Simplified diagram illustrating the three main approaches to carbon

capture. (Source: Freund & Kårstad 2007)
When separating CO2 from the exhaust gases after combustion (post-combustion separation), a
chemi- cal is utilised to bind CO 2 and separate it from the other flue gases. This is a technology
that has been in use for decades. It is well developed commercially and suitable for both new
projects and post-fitting onto existing point sources.

Separating CO2 from fuel before combustion (pre-combustion separation) is another solution.
Under high temperatures it is possible to split hydrocarbons into hydrogen and CO 2. The CO2 can
then be re- moved before combustion and the reactor is fuelled with hydrogen, which emits
only water when com- busted. The process to split hydrocarbons, by gasification of coal or
reforming of natural gas, is being used in many industrial processes, such as ammonia
production. This also applies for combustion and power production using gases with high
hydrogen content.

Combustion with pure oxygen (oxy-fuel combustion) is the third major approach to CO 2 capture.
In oxy- fuel combustion oxygen is extracted from the air and the fuel is combusted in pure
oxygen. When fuels are burned with pure oxygen, the exhaust gas consists of CO 2 and water
vapour. The separation of CO 2 is done by decreasing the temperature so that vapour condenses
out as water. Large-scale air separation units producing pure oxygen are in commercial use for
different kinds of industrial processes.
The world’s first gas power plant with CO2 capture, in Lubbock, Texas (1980).
 Post-combustion capture
Today, capturing (or separating CO 2 from flue gases) CO2 using amines is the most widespread
method for post-combustion capture.

Amine technology has already been used for decades to capture CO 2 from both flue gas and
natural gas. Several installations exist, of which several are operative. The first gas power plant
using this technology was built in 1980 in Lubbock, Texas. Today, companies like Fluor Daniel
from UK/USA, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japan, Aker Clean Carbon from Norway and
CanSolv from Canada can deliver full-scale, amine based post-combustion separation
equipment.

Among the different separation methods post-combustion separation is the most versatile; it
can be fit- ted to many different types of emitters – both power plants and industrial plants –
and separation equip- ment can be post-fitted on existing emission sources. However, such
separation equipment requires an available space close to the emission source.

The composition of the flue gas stream will differ depending on the emission source. While
exhaust gas from a conventional gas power plant contains 3-4 percent CO 2, the equivalent
figure for coal power plants is 12-14 percent, and cement industry approximately 20 percent.
Differences in flue gas composi- tion, CO 2 concentration and flue gas pressure affect the choice
of chemicals.

How much of the CO2 that can be separated is largely a matter of cost. It is possible to separate
practically all CO2 from a flue stream, but getting at the last few percents requires
considerably more energy and is therefore expensive. Typical CO 2 recoveries from flue gas with
amines are about 85 percent, but it is pos- sible to have a higher capture rate.

Other chemicals, such as ammonia, can also be used to bind CO 2. Ammonia has been
extensively tested in laboratories as a CO 2 solvent and large demonstration plants have been
built.

Removing CO2 using amines

In this process
The exhaust gas is released at the top.
the flue gas 3 The gas rises inside the
Amines* run
tower. 85-90 % of the CO2 has been removed.
flows through downwards. CO is bound to the
2
amines, and the solution is
collected at
a large tower the bottom.
called an
absorber or
scrub- ber. In
this so-called
absorption
process, the
gas comes into
contact with
the ab-
sorption fluid
(amines mixed
with water)
Absorber (scrubber) A
fixing the CO2 p
p
r
t
e
o
in a relatively weak chemi- x
.
r
s
4
0
m h
e i
g h
cal tio ut
bon n. 40° 2 The gas is cooled to 30-40 °C
using
din The C water.
g. ami
Cooler
The nes
bou are Flue gas, 80-90°C
nd the
CO n Amine and CO2 solution

is reu 1
Flue gas from coal
tra sed
nsp to
ort abs
ed orb
to mo
ano re
the CO
r .
tow
er, Flu
call e
ed gas
a fro
stri m
ppe gas
r, po
wh wer
ere pla
the nts
sol has
ven a
t is te
hea m-
ted per
. atu
Thi re
s of
sep abo
ara ut
tes 80
the –
CO 100
fro °C.
m The
the flu
ami e
nes gas
in a sho
pro uld
ces usu
s ally
call be
ed coo
re- led
gen to
era abo
 The solution
Pure CO2 out
4 is
Amines are recycled heated.
Separation At about
unit (stripper)
or gas power plant. 120 °C the amines
bef Steam is pumped in release the CO2. The amines
ore sink, while the CO2 rises to
the top.
abs * chemical compound that binds to CO2
orp
tio
n.

A
400
MW
gas
po
we
r
pla
nt
pro
du
ces
a
flue gas stream of approximately 2.5
Figure 8: Illustration of a CO2 capture facility
mil- using amine absorption (Source: ZERO and
Mitsubishi)
 lion Nm³/hour. To treat this amount of gas, an absorption tower with a diameter of 20-
30metres and a height of 30-40 metres is required. This will be the largest single unit in the
separation facility. The tower is filled with packing to provide the largest possible surface for
contact between the upward-rising gas and downward-running amine solution. At the top, a
washing tower removes any amine residue that has followed the flue gas stream before the
CO2-free flue gas is released into the atmosphere.

The capture plant’s energy consumption

The most energy consuming part of the capture process is the heating required to separate CO 2
from the amine solution. This heat is provided by steam holding 120-140°C. The energy can be
provided from dif- ferent sources e.g. excess energy from an industrial process. However, in
the case of capturing CO2 from a gas or coal-fired power plant, the most convenient alternative
is to use steam from a steam generator/ turbine.

There is also electricity consumption in the process. Fans and pumps are used to compensate
for loss in pressure in the absorption tower, to pump amine solution and the cooling water
around and to com- press or cool CO 2 before transporting. The energy demands of this kind of
CO2 removal process reduces the electricity generating efficiency of a typical new gas power
plant from about 58 percent to 51 per- cent. For coal, the efficiency loss is somewhat bigger -
because of larger amounts of CO2 - from about 45 percent to about 38 percent.

Choosing the right amine for separating CO2 depends on several conditions. The most used
amine com- pound for flue gas CO2 removal at atmospheric pressure is monoethanolamine
(MEA). To remove CO2 at higher pressures methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) is often used. Many
suppliers of amine separation plants supply their own mixture of amines and additives, adapted
to the intended use. Best known is KS-1 from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Considerable
improvements in energy efficiency have been achieved over the decades of commercial
application of amine technology. More efficient system designs and heat in- tegration in the
process plants are two areas where further development is taking place.

Efficiency
Plant efficiency is often termed as the percentage of fuel energy actually utilised in a given facility.

In gas-fired plants the gas turbine converts almost 40 percent of the energy in the fuel to electricity. The hot
exhaust gas is then used to produce steam which in turn drives a steam turbine converting another 20 percent
of input fuel energy into electrical power. The added amount of electricity generated is called the electrical
generation efficiency of the plant. The surplus energy now exists as heat, and when not used this is called
waste heat. A power plant may also deliver heat to industrial processes or district heating. If high
temperatures are required, steam will be tapped from the generation cycle, somewhat reducing electrical
output. The amount of energy utilised either as electrical power or heat compared to the energy input is
called total plant efficiency.

When CO2 from a power plant is captured, transported and stored it is generally said that efficiency decreases
by some percentage points. This is not quite correct, as energy does not cease to exist. If capture equipment
is integrated within the power plant, some of the heat that would otherwise have been wasted can be used in
the capture process. The en- ergy required for CCS in a power plant is mostly distributed as seven percentage
points of electricity and 14 percentage points of heat. In conventional gas power plants 58 percent of the
supplied fuel is converted into power, the rest wasted as heat unless used for district heating; In fact, the
total energy utilisation for a plant with CCS would be 72 percent. If we acknowledge that CCS is at least as
legitimate a use of power as any other use, a plant with integrated CCS is therefore more efficient than a
conventional plant.
From an environmental point of view the emission level, not the efficiency, is of paramount concern. The
problem is not that there is a limited supply of fossil fuels in the world, but that there is too much.
Removing CO2 using ammonia
Removing CO2 using ammonia is a similar process to using amines, but has the advantage that
the re- generation process requires less energy.

The challenge is that ammonia is highly volatile and vaporises easily. In CO 2 separation this can
be solved by using energy to cool the flue gas before separation. This will slow down the
reaction speed and in- crease the size of the required absorber.

The chilled ammonia process has been extensively tested in several projects. The We Energies
Field Pilot, designed to capture over 15,000 tonnes per annum of CO 2, was operated during
October 2009. This proj- ect demonstrated that chilled ammonia CO 2 capture could be applied
to coal-fired applications.

American Electric Power (AEP) has built a demonstration plant for 100,000 t/y at the
Mountaineer Plant power plant in New Haven, West Virginia. The plant started in 2009 and the
validation programme has now been successfully completed. The full-scale plant, set to be
operational by 2015, was postponed in 2011. This was due to lack of financial incentives. When
operational, the facility will test Alstom’s chilled ammonia technology for CO 2 capture from
flue gases − which is of specific use at natural gas combined cycle power plants. The project
will capture at least 90 percent of CO 2 from 235MW of Mountaineer’s 1300 MW capacity, or
about 1.5 million tonnes per year.

The ammonia technology is approved for flue gas with high levels of CO 2 such as from coal.
The flue gas is cooled, reaching a temperature between 0 and 10°C, and is transported to the
absorber where it meets ammonia in aqueous solution. The reaction with CO 2 produces
ammonium carbonate and ammonium bicarbonate. The remaining flue gas is led through a
washing process to remove any re- maining ammonia. The solution is heated in a separate
reactor – a desorber – so that CO 2 is released, and remaining ammonia is reused to capture
more CO2.

Alstom are building a demo plant for the chilled ammonia process at Technology Centre
Mongstad (TCM) in Norway. This will be in operation in the first half of 2012. This testing is
expected to give answers on how well this technology is suited to capturing CO 2 from gas
streams with lower CO2 concentrations, such as gas-fired power plants.

Existing
Stack
Concentrated CO2 Stream
to Sequestration
Retur
Ener
Scrubbe n gyRec
Fl
u
e
ga
s
to
St
ac
k

Figure 9:Flue Gas Slip

IllustrationStream Flue Gas
Cooling System
of the CO CO2
removal Absorption
50 °C Tower
process
Pilot plant to be built
with EPRI and We-Energies using
ammonia.
 Process
CO2 Lean Fluid
CO2 Rich Regeneration
Ener
0-10 °C
Pre-combustion capture
When separating CO2 before combustion the fuel is converted into a mixture of hydrogen and
CO2, which can be separated relatively easily.

The same technological principles are applicable for power production using coal and gas, but
the gasifi- cation process in the first stage of the plant will vary.

Figure 10 shows a simple flowchart of the main processes in a hydrogen fuelled power plant
with natural gas reformation. Fuel, water vapour and air are mixed in a reactor for chemical
reforming of the fuel into carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H 2). Reforming takes place at a
high temperature and pressure and requires a supply of energy. The synthesis gas is then
further converted to additional hydrogen in a so-called water shift reactor after being cooled to
about 300°C. In this process CO reacts with water (H 2O) to form CO2 and H2. CO2 is removed
using amine absorption and hydrogen is used to fuel a gas turbine. Combustion of hydrogen
emits no CO2, only water vapour.

Natural gas
* Heat recovery steam generator

Figur
Air 10: Illustration of natural gas CO2
Autoterm reformer water shift reactor CO2 absorption/ desorption
reformation.

Reforming of natural gas takes place at high temperatures and requires Exhaustlarge amounts of
energy. This reduces the electrical generation efficiency by 11 to 14 percentage points
compared to conventional natural gas powerGas turbineWith the current
plants. Steamlevel
HRSG*technological turbine
of gas
turbines the generation efficiency of a plant of this type would be 44-47 percent.

To improve efficiency, research is exploring ways to reform the natural gas at lower
temperatures and/ or using less steam. Another possibility is to have the CO 2 separation and
the feeding of hydrogen to the turbine happen at higher temperatures. To achieve this, the
equilibrium for the reactions must be shifted by removing hydrogen or CO2 in the process.

A gas power plant using natural gas reforming has yet to be built, but both natural gas
reforming and gas turbines using high concentrations of hydrogen are technologies currently in
use. This means the tech- nology is considered to be mature and available and that such plants
can be built as fast as conventional gas power plants. An advantage for this technology is its
potential combination with the production of hydrogen for other purposes, such as hydrogen
fuel. Compared to post-combustion separation less en- ergy is required to pressurise CO 2 for
transport using this technology. The equipment is also smaller and can be built on a smaller
site.

Technological development is needed to achieve hydrogen combustion with low NOx emissions
com- bined with high efficiency. Hydrogen burns at a very high temperature. Current
combustion chamber technology cannot burn pure hydrogen, which has to be mixed with
nitrogen and/or water vapour to re- duce temperature and NOx emissions. The NOx problem
can be solved by developing better combustion technology or by removing NOx using a process
such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR); this is already required in conventional gas power
plants to meet NOx emission limits.
Oxy-fuel combustion
In the so-called oxy-fuel process the combustion takes place using pure oxygen rather than air.
The ex- haust gas consists of water vapour and CO 2, which is separated by cooling the flue gas
so that the water vapour condenses into liquid.

This method requires large quantities of oxygen that usually is extracted from air. Air consists
of 78 per- cent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen and smaller quantities of other gases, such as
Argon and CO2. Figure 11 is a simplified illustration on Vattenfall’s oxyfuel process where a
separation unit delivers oxygen to the combustion chamber.

Figure 11: Simplified flowchart for an oxy-fuel power plant . (Source: Kjell-design / Vattenfall)

Combustion with pure oxygen generates very high temperatures. Combustion chamber
technology must therefore be changed to allow for recycled CO 2 or water vapour to be used as
inert gas in oxy-fuel projects.

Combustion with pure oxygen emits virtually no NOx as there is no nitrogen from the air from
which NOx could form; only small quantities of nitrogen in the fuel may lead to the forming of
some NOx. The exhaust gas consists almost exclusively of CO 2 and water vapour. The water
vapour is removed by cooling the flue gas so that the water vapour condensates into liquid,
leaving almost pure concentrated CO2 in the exhaust gas.

Electrical generation efficiency in oxy-fuel plants may be higher than in conventional plants
using com- bustion with air. But air separation and CO 2 compression requires energy, leading to
an overall loss in effi-
ciency of about 12 percent. The power
generation efficiency of a combined
cycle gas power plant with oxygen
combustion and CO2 compression is
therefore 43-48 percent.

The advantages of oxy-fuel technology

are that it provides a relatively simple
way to capture nearly all CO 2 with
virtually no emissions. It can be re-
alised technically by using conventional
steam turbine technology, and air
separation is a well- known and mature
technology with many exist- ing
installations and suppliers. Oxy-fuel Figure 12: Offshore gas power plant with CO2
technol- ogy is equally suited for gas capture, from 1988 (Source: Holt & Lindberg).
and coal power plants and can be an
alternative for post-fitting when ex-
isting plants are modernised or rebuilt.
Plans for an offshore gas power plant with oxy-fuel CO 2 capture was made public as early as
1987. In many ways this marked the beginning of efforts to provide an alternative energy supply
to Norwegian petroleum activity. In 1988 a report to Statoil contained a study of the concept,
called “Environmentally friendly gas power combined with EOR” (Holt & Lindeberg 1988). The
concept is illustrated in figure 12.

Vattenfall builds oxy-fuel pilot

In 2008 Vattenfall opened a 30MW oxy-fuel pilot plant, located near the existing lignite fired
1600 MW power plant in Schwarze Pumpe, Germany. The plant has the capacity to capture 9
tonnes of CO2 per hour, which translates into 75,000 t/y at full load.

The purpose of the pilot plant is to validate and improve CO2 capture technology.
Originally, the separated and liquefied CO 2 produced by the pilot plant should have been
transported by truck to the storage site in Altmark 350km away (see below). Public protests
together with a lack of fed- eral storage legislation have brought the Altmark project to a halt.
However, in May 2011, the first tonnes of CO 2 captured at Schwarze Pumpe were stored
geologically in onshore saline aquifers transported by truck to the storage project in Ketzin.

Altmark
With a storage potential of 508Mt, the reservoir currently has the largest storage volume
available in depleted gas fields in Europe and is the only nearly exhausted gas field capable of
storing the CO2 from a power plant over its entire lifespan. Being already investigated, explored
and developed, this gas field therefore provides very favourable conditions for developing the
entire CO2 value chain. Vattenfall planned to inject up to 10,000 tonnes of CO 2 in the 3000m
deep gas storage site.

The project is accompanied by the research project CLEAN (Geotechnologien), which will
provide sup- port for the development of technologies and methods for CO 2 storage and
enhanced gas recovery (EGR). Seventeen research institutions and companies are involved.
From 2008 to 2010, injection tech- nologies, the characterisation the geological formations and
process monitoring were investigated.
Future technologies
Many technologies require considerably more research and development to be considered
mature for full-scale implementation. The following technologies present a number of
possibilities for the future.

Chemical looping combustion

In this process pure oxygen for combustion is supplied by circulating metals that bind oxygen
from the air.

Two separate reactors are used. In the first one the metal reacts with oxygen under pressure
and a tem- perature of 400-500°C. The oxygen is bound to the metal, which oxidises to form a
metal oxide. This in turn is transported to the next reactor, where the oxygen is released at
500-900°C in a reaction with natural gas. The metal is then recycled and transported back to
the first reactor. Instead of moving large volumes of metal from one reactor to another, it is
possible to have each reactor play a dual role, alternat- ing between supplying air and fuel to
each reactor.

Air
Oxidation Generation Flue “air”

MeO Me CO2
CmHn
Reduction Generation Cooler H2O

Figure 13: Chemical looping combustion.

From the reactor the exhaust gas is led through a turbine to generate power. As in any other
oxy-fuel process CO2 is separated, by cooling the exhaust gas and condensing the water. In
addition, some pow- er may be generated in a turbine from the warm oxygen-lean air from the
oxidation process. Research on this technology is being carried out at the Norwegian University
of Science and Technology and Chalmers in Sweden, among other places.

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC)

Solid oxide fuel cells operate at very high temperatures. They are made of ceramic materials
requiring temperatures as high as 1000°C to acquire the necessary conductivity in the cell.
El. power E
H2, CO, (El. power)
x
h
a
u
s
t

(
m
a
i
n
l
y
Natural gas Anode CO2and H2O CO2 and H2O)
SOFC “Afterburner”
fuel cell
 Air
Cathode
Air with less
Ai O2
r
wi
th
le
ss
O2

Figure 14: Solide

oxide fuel cell

Fuel cells offer the possibility for more efficient power production than with combustion. In
general, fuel cells feature the electrochemical oxidation of gaseous fuels directly producing
electricity.
 at 600-800 C° the natural gas can decompose
to a mixture of hydrogen and CO2. The
hydrogen can be used in a gas turbine or a
fuel cell, which then produces electricity.

The Norwegian Institute for Energy

Technology (IFE) is developing a process for
CO2 capture using cal- cium carbonate at
high temperatures integrated with a SOFC. In
a joint venture with Christian Michelsen
Research (CMR) and Prototech, IFE is
ZEG conducting lab tests on combined power and
hydrogen production with carbon capture,
Power generation efficiency using SOFC
called ZEG (Zero Emission Gas Power
technology is about 48-50 percent. The fuel
Project).
cell will leave an excess stream of around 15
percent that does not react. This could be
Here, natural gas is reformed to hydrogen
used to fuel an afterburner to provide extra
and CO2 in a reactor at high temperature.
power generation in a turbine. Such a hybrid
Calcium oxide is supplied, reacting with the
solution may yield 60-70 percent generation
CO2 to form calcium carbonate. Heat from
efficiency.
the fuel cell is used to separate CO 2 from the
carbonate. Regenerated calcium oxide is
These systems make use of the internal
recycled and used to capture more CO 2. The
reforming capabilities of the high
process produces both electricity and
temperature fuel cells. By run- ning natural
hydrogen.
gas through a reforming process with water

Hydrogen membrane reactor

In hydrogen membrane reactors hydrogen is produced using a membrane that separates
hydrogen from a given gas mixture. This reaction is therefore more complete than in
conventional reactors, and the technology can improve efficiency of pre-combustion carbon
capture.

With this membrane natural gas and steam is transported through a pipe filled with small
spheres of cat- alytic material. CO and H 2 are formed in the reforming process, through which
hydrogen is continuously tapped through the pipe wall. The reaction is more complete and can
take place at a lower temperature with lower steam surplus and at a higher pressure – all in all
reducing the energy loss. However, acquiring adequate materials and a practical design for
integrated high temperature membranes is very difficult.
 CO2 capture from industrial sites
Large amount of the CO2 emitted around the world comes from production of industrial
products like ce- ment, ammonia, urea, pulp and petrochemical industry. Capture from most
industrial sites can undergo the same capture technologies used for power plants.

Within industry, iron and steel manufacturing now contributes the largest proportion (30
percent) of CO2 emissions, followed by cement (26 percent) and chemical production (17
percent) (IEA, 2009a). But this picture is changing rapidly. As late as 2005 the IPCC said the
production of iron and steel was the third largest contributor of CO 2 after cement production
and refining. Most current applications of CCS are in industry.

In the context of enabling CCS in general, industrial applications are important because they
can provide valuable experience with regards to capture techniques, transport infrastructure,
suitability of storage sites and the behaviour of stored CO 2. This knowledge can then be
transferred to larger-scale and more complex CCS deployment in both industry and power
generation (IEA, 2009c). As a whole, industry is a major contributor to global CO 2 emissions,
although the extent may vary depending on each country and region. Therefore, the application
of CCS in industry could become a catalyst for more widespread use of CCS in other areas as
well.

Cement production
Production of cement, involving the calcination of limestone, is the largest industrial source of
CO2 emis- sions globally apart from the power sector, accounting for about 1000Mt/y of CO 2. In
addition, large quantities of heat energy are needed to drive the process and this energy is
usually taken from fossil fuels.

The concentration of CO2 in the flue gases from

IndustrialuseofCO2 cement production is 15-30 percent by volume.
With this high CO2 concentration, post-combustion
For decades a number of countries have captured, capture technolo- gies are well suited to cement
transportedandusedCO2inthefoodindustry,inthechemicalin production plants. It is possible to utilise waste
dustryandforEOR.CO2iscapturedfromnaturalgas,industrialpro- heat from the cement kilns in the capture facility,
cesses,andcoalorgaspowerplants. but capture of a high percentage of the emitted
CO2 would require additional generation of steam
for the regeneration process.
CO2is used in the production of soft drinks and beers,
forkeeping optimal CO2concentrations in greenhouses, in
fireextinguishers,infertilisersandintheproductionofchemical
productssuchasmethanol.Itcanalsobeusedforcoolingandwrappinginfo
odproduction. Oil and gas processing
Emissions from the processing of natural gas and
The production of CO2for commercial purposes is a from oil refineries account for about 850 Mt/y of
CO2. The majority of these emissions come from oil
well-es-
refineries. Emissions from the generation of
tablishedindustry,andthegasisanimportantcommodityinthe food
electric energy, heat energy and steam used in the
industry.TheEuropeanmarketiscontinuallygrow-ing,andin2004saleswereatalmost3 various processes on the plant, and emissions from
million tonnes, of the production of hydrogen, would be most viable
which70percentwasusedasadditivesinbeverageproduction. for capture. In principle, most capture methods
suitable for power plants could be in- tegrated into
a refinery. Limitations in the area available and
specific needs in modes of energy delivery may
limit the options.
 The processing of natural gas from sources with high CO 2 content involves removing CO2 from
the gas stream. This process produces an almost pure stream of CO 2. Gas captured from natural
gas processing is used in several EOR projects in the USA.

The Sleipner plant in the North Sea, the Snøhvit plant at Melkøya in northern Norway and the In
Salah plant in Algeria are three operating natural gas plants that currently capture and store
CO2 from natural gas processing.

Steel Production
The iron and steel industry is a major industrial emission sector, accounting for about 650 Mt/y
of CO2. The integrated steel plants are used predominantly to produce steel from iron ore in a
blast furnace, us- ing coal as the primary fuel.

In many blast furnace operations, CO 2 removal is already integrated in the process. The blast
furnace process involves reacting iron ore with CO to remove carbon from the ore, producing
CO2. The top gas in these furnaces is a mixture of CO, CO 2 and H2O, where the CO can be
recycled to the bottom of the furnace to improve steel production. This requires the CO 2 and
water to be removed. Water can then be removed from this stream, using condensation,
leaving a pure CO2 stream, ready for capture, compres- sion and storage.

In mini-mills, the direct reduction of iron ore is an opportunity for CO 2 capture. This involves
reacting high oxygen content iron ore with H2 and CO to form reduced iron and H2O and CO2.
Around 90-95 per- cent of the CO 2 may be captured from this process. In addition, CO 2 can be
captured from the production of H 2, in a process similar to pre-combustion capture in power
plants.

Capture from steel production has been studied extensively in the ULCOS (Ultra–Low Carbon
dioxide Steelmaking) project. It is a consortium that consists of all major European Union steel
companies from 15 European countries supported by the European Commission. The aim of the
programme is to reduce the CO2 emissions of today’s best routes by at least 50 percent.

Ammonia production
Ammonia production is one of several petrochemical processes that produce CO 2 as a part of
the indus- trial process. Ammonia is produced through reformation of hydrocarbons. The CO 2
must be removed from the reformer as part of the process. This is done using amine technology
in most existing plants.

In many cases ammonia plants are set up so as to use the produced CO 2 in other processes.
Some CO2 captured from ammonia plants is currently used in EOR and in food grade industry.

Other processes
Other petrochemical processes, such as the production of ethylene, hydrogen and methanol,
are also vi- able for CO 2 capture and storage. The petrochemical industry combined accounts
for nearly 300Mt/y of CO2.
CO2 can also be captured from processes involving biomass, such as the fermentation of sugar
to produce bio ethanol. One full-scale capture plant of this type is planned by Archer Daniels
Midland Company in Illinois, USA
Bio CCS
Bio CCS is a concept that consists of capturing,
transporting and storing CO2 from biomass-
fermenta- tion and/or combustion processes. This
CO2 is considered climate neutral since plants and
trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere for their
growth via photosynthesis. It is then emitted back
to the atmosphere during biomass transformation.
Under specific conditions, Bio CCS can even create
artificial carbon sinks.

As an example, Bio CCS can be applied to a biomass

power plant, a pulp and paper factory or to a
biofuel production unit. Capturing and storing
emissions from biomass combustion has the effect
of reducing the net concentration of CO 2 in the
atmosphere, making it a potentially powerful global
warming mitiga- tion measure.

Current biomass energy production plants are much

smaller than fossil fuel plants. A typical plant has a
capacity of 30MW, with yearly CO2 emissions of less
than 0.2 MtCO2, which needs to be located near to
other large emission sources to be practical for CCS.
Biomass is used in increasing scale in a number of
countries as co-firing with fossil fuels, as in large
coal fired power plants.
Biomass is a limited resource which also limits
potential for Bio CCS in power generation. However,
alter- native biomass sources, like algae production,
may increase the availability of biomass in the
future.

Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU)

CO2 has been in use in a wide range of industries for decades. Most of them have no climate
mitigation effect, but some can have a good GHG impact. It is also an important learning
process for industry, which plays a role in scaling up CCS processes for large-scale use.

Perhaps the most common operations from which commercially-produced CO 2 is recovered are
indus- trial plants that produce hydrogen or ammonia. In Norway, Yara produces more than
200,000 tonnes of CO2 for use in the food-grade industry from their ammonia production.

The following table is taken from a report produced by the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) and
gives a very good overview of existing uses for CO2.
 Uses of CO2 for industrial applications

Uses of CO2 Description

EOR (EOR) CO2 is injected into depleted oil fields. The CO2 acts
as a sol- vent that reduces the viscosity of the oil,
enabling it to flow to the production well. The CO2
can potentially be perma- nently stored in the
reservoir.
Urea yield boosting (non-captive use only)2 Urea production usually gives surplus ammonia as a bi-
prod- uct. CO2 can be compressed and combined with
the surplus ammonia to produce additional urea.
Other oil and gas industry applications CO2 as a fluid for the stimulation/fracturing of oil and
gas wells. It is injected as liquid carrying propping
agents
Beverage carbonation Carbonation of beverages with high-purity CO2.
Wine making Seal gas to prevent oxidation of the wine during
maturation. CO2 is produced during the fermentation
process, and is already captured on-site for reuse for
its inert gas properties.
Food processing, preservation and Cooling while grinding powders such as spices.
packaging Maintaining of inert atmospheres
Packaging applications, CO2 is used in modified
atmosphere packaging (Carbon dioxide is commonly
used because of its ability to inhibit growth of
bacteria that cause spoilage.
Coffee decaffeination Supercritical CO2 is used as the solvent for
decaffeinating coffee.
Pharmaceutical processes Inserting, chemical synthesis, supercritical fluid
extraction, product transportation at low
temperature, and acidification of wastewater.

Clustering
There will be an advantage in including CO 2
emitting industry into plans for CCS in industrial
areas. Some projects are starting to look at
industrial synergies in several heavily industrialised
areas of Europe, such as Rotterdam and the
Skagerrak/Kattegat region. These regions have
cement, pulp and petrochemical companies that,
together with the power generating sector, the EU
and local authorities aim to find a common strategy
for contributing to a more climate neutral industry.
Transporting CO2
Captured CO2 can be transported in a number of different ways, including by road tankers and
railway, but for the volumes involved in CCS, pipeline and ship are the most practical and
economical options.

Extensive experience exists in the transport of CO2 by pipeline, while the use of ships and other
carriers is still in its infancy and is so far only applied to small quantities of food grade CO 2.
However, natural gas, petroleum gas and condensates are routinely transported by all of the
mentioned carriers under a wide variety of conditions - including across deserts, mountain
ranges, heavily populated areas, arctic areas and in deep sea. Therefore, the transport of CO 2
is similar to, and no more challenging than, the transport of hydrocarbon gases.

Pipeline is the most economical method for distances up to 1000-1500 km, depending on
specific con- ditions and the volume transported. Beyond this distance, transport by ship may
be more economical (IPCC, 2005). At present, no planned CCS projects are based on marine
transport of CO2 from the capture site to the storage site, but future projects may require it,
particularly if no suitable storage site is found within the vicinity of a large emission source or a
cluster of large emission sources.

Ship transport
The key elements in ship transport are liquefaction, intermediate storage, loading, unloading
(onshore or offshore) and heating. These are illustrated in figure 15. When unloading offshore,
a pumping station is needed. Here, the liquid is pumped to injection pressure and heated to
ambient temperature, at least 15°C, to avoid hydrate formation before injecting.

Offshore processing is considered costly and can be avoided by unloading the CO 2 from the ship
to an onshore hub located close to the offshore storage site. This requires an additional onshore
intermediate storage tank, compression and an offshore pipeline.

Until the ship reaches its destination, the CO2 is stored in semi-pressurised intermediate storage
tanks, which keep it in a liquid state, with a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure and a
temperature low- er than the surroundings. The intermediate storage capacity should match
the amount of CO2 produced between the ship calls. Transport of CO 2 by ship requires
intermediate storage since the gas is in most cases captured continuously.

A loading system on the quay

trans- fers the liquid CO2 to the
ship. The CO2 then arrives at the
storage site or at an onshore hub
in a ship at around 7-9 bar and -
50°C. The slight increase in
pressure is because the tanks
hold- ing the liquid CO2 will heat
up slight- ly during transport. This
increase will be dependent on
transport duration.

A hub is defined as intermediate

storage and can either be in a
ship transport solution, where the
CO2 continuously captured is
stored un- til the next ship call,
or a collection
point for CO2 from different sources. Figure 15: Illustration of ship transport with key elements.
 Transport of CO2 by ship. For almost 20 years Yara has transported liquid
CO2 on ships, being both the European and world leader in the field. Each
year, the company delivers about 850-900,000 tonnes of CO2, or around 30
percent of the European market.
Pipeline transport
Transport of CO2 by pipeline is most
effective when the gas is in liquid or
supercritical state (dense phase).
The reason for this is that the
friction loss along the pipeline per
mass unit of CO2 is lower compared
with its trans- port as a gas or a two-
phase (liquid and gas).

The pressure in the pipeline de-

creases due to friction and the tem-
perature drops due to heat transfer
with the outside medium along the
length of the pipeline. The CO2 will
gradually move from a supercriti- cal
fluid into a liquid, but will still be in
single phase. The pressure at the Figure 16: Illustration of pipeline transport.
end of the pipeline must be above
~ 74 bar (critical pressure of CO 2) to
ensure that the gas is kept in liquid
dense phase. 82Number of CO
2 -EOR projects
Natural CO2 sources Industrial CO2 sources CO2 pipeline
Proposed CO2 pipelie Commercial CO2-EOR project
Dakota
Coal
Gasificatio
n Plant
Antrim
Gas
Plant
LaBarge 3
Gas Plant 9
2
Enid Fertilizer
1
1
Mc n
El Br
m av
o o Jackson Dome
Do Do
m m
e e
Sh Plant
ee
p 6
Mo
un
tai 57
 6
Val Verde

Gas Plants

Figure 17: Pipeline infrastructure for CO2

transportation in USA (Source: Advanced Resources
International).
 The initial pressure at the beginning of the pipeline depends on the associated pressure drop
over the pipeline length. The pressure drop in the pipeline depends on the flow rate, pipe
geometry, pipeline route, and other factors. An illustration of pipeline transport is given in
figure 16.

Pipelines have been used for CO2 transport in the USA for a relatively long time, transporting
large vol- umes to oilfields for EOR. Pipeline infrastructure there has the capacity to carry 50
million tonnes of CO2 a year, and according to experiences, pipeline transport is safe and
reliable. Valuable lessons have been learned. For example, gas must be dried before
transported through steel pipes to avoid corrosion, and the sulphur level (in the form of
hydrogen sulphide, H2S) must be low in case of leakages, particularly when pipelines go through
inhabited areas. Pipelines must be constructed to shut down automatically in case of leakage.

Large compressors are in current use, for example, at the Dakota Coal Gasification plant in
North Dakota, where one compresses and delivers 1.2 million tonnes a year to the Weyburn
oilfield in Canada (Freund & Kårstad 2007).

Risks and safety

Land pipelines are built according to defined standards and are subject to regulatory approval
to assure a high level of safety, particularly in densely populated areas. Pipelines in operation
are monitored inter- nally by pigs (piston-like inspection devices that are driven through the
pipeline by gas pressure) and externally by corrosion monitoring and leak detection systems. In
the case of a leak, transport of CO2 is shut down automatically.

The risk involved in transport by ship is low. New tankers are generally well designed to avoid
loss of cargo in the case of a collision, stranding or fire. There have been no accidental losses
of cargo from liq- uefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. Should an accident happen to a liquid CO 2
tanker, liquefied CO2 might be released onto the surface of the sea. The environmental effects
of such an event are not fully known and require further study. However, the long-term effects
are anticipated not to have the long-term envi- ronmental impacts of crude oil spills.

Challenges
There are few technical challenges in large scale CO 2
transport. Extensive experience in pipeline trans-
port has been gained in connection with use of CO 2 in
EOR in the USA and Canada, as mentioned above.
Further, experiences derived from natural gas
pipelines are of relevance to the transport of CO2.

There is less experience with large-scale transport of

CO2 by ship. Some further development of large
transport vessels is needed but, as with pipeline
transport, comparison with the transport of LNG pro-
vides very useful knowledge and experience.

There are also some legal matters to be dealt with,

such as the ratification of a prohibition on the export
of CO2 under the London Dumping Protocol and the
fact that ship transport is not currently accepted
within the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme.
 CO2 infrastructure and transport in the North Sea
Situated on each side of the North Sea, the UK and Norway are both struggling to fulfil their
commit- ments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Both countries are looking for solutions to
cut CO2 emis- sions on short and long term through clean energy initiatives. Governments in
both countries see CCS as an important instrument to combine fossil energy production with
measures which efficiently reduce emissions.

The One North Sea study, which concluded with a final report titled “A study into North Sea CO 2
cross- border transport and storage” (One North Sea, 2010), was carried out for the Norwegian
and UK govern- ments on behalf of the North Sea Basin Task Force. The aim was to investigate
and plan for the possible joint regulation of CCS in the North Sea. This taskforce includes the
Netherlands and Germany in addition to the two aforementioned countries.

A main driver for the One North Sea study was the fact that there is both an abundant storage
capacity and a large cluster of CO2 sources in and around the North Sea basin. Combined with
the presence of world-class research institutes and commercial stakeholders, this suggested
that the North Sea countries could be natural leaders of the development and deployment of
CCS technology in Europe.

About 50 percent of the European storage potential for CO 2 is located under the North Sea. The
cluster- ing of sources and possible storage sites provides opportunities to develop efficient
transportation and storage networks. It is concluded in the One North Sea study that in the
initial period no cross-border transport is necessary. Several countries are possibly involved,
and at a later stage, i.e., beyond 2020, cross-border transportation of CO 2 could become
increasingly important, and eventually account for up to 25 percent of the CO 2 stored.

The North Sea Basin Task Force

analysis concludes that the rapid 250 Mt Scale
deployment of large-scale low
cost infrastructure by 2030 is
technically achievable and is
necessary for full deployment
(e.g. the ‘Very High’ scenario
described in this report which
stores over 270Mt/y of CO2 in
2030).

However this would require a

step change in co-operation in
planning by numerous UK oilfields UK gasfields UK aquifers
stakeholders, favour- able Norway oilfields
Norway gas fields
economic conditions and CCS Norway aquifers
cost reduction. With only modest
further intervention, the market
is likely to deliver only a few of
the most straightforward CCS
projects by 2030, storing up to
46Mt/y of CO2 under the North
Sea in a ‘Medium’ scenario. The
shortfall between ‘Very High’ 50
and ‘Medium’ scenarios would
need to be met by other ap-
proaches to CO2 Figure 18: Storage capacity in the
abatement.’ Norwegian and UK part of The
North Sea (Source: Element
Energy).
The CO2 Storage Atlas (Dec 2011), Norwegian North Sea, prepared by the Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (NPD), shows that this area has a total storage capacity of around 70 billion tonnes
- or 70 Gt - of CO2. By comparison, the oil refinery at Mongstad, which is the largest single
source of CO2 emissions in Norway, releases about 1.5 Mt/y of CO 2. The atlas is based on studies
and data from more than 40 years of petroleum operations. Twenty-one geological formations
have been identified and assessed in terms of reservoir quality and presence of the sealing
layer. Reservoirs that are considered suitable are discussed in detail.

The NPD has considered abandoned oil and gas fields in addition to producing fields that are
sched- uled to be shut down in 2030 and 2050. Reservoirs that may be used in conjunction with
EOR are also described.

Making North Sea carbon storage a reality is a longstanding matter of high priority for ZERO.
Know-how from Sleipner and the large storage capacity in the Utsira field is of key importance.
For Norway and the UK pipeline transport to the North Sea is the most practical solution for
offshore carbon sequestration.

Studies indicate that 28 pipelines on the British side of the North Sea would have the capacity
to carry be- tween 10 and 50 MtCO 2 a year, but if existing infrastructure is to be used, this
needs further clarification. Within a few years, many oil and gas fields in the North Sea will
close down and an inter-governmental plan will be necessary to fully exploit the potential of
existing closed-down installations for CO2 storage.
Carbon storage
The last but not least step in the CCS
process is to store it safely under-
ground. This can be achieved by
find- ing deep geological formations
that can be monitored and
controlled for thousands of years.

Natural accumulations of virtually

pure CO2 can be found all over the
planet in a wide range of geological
settings: particularly in sedimentary
basins, intra-plate volcanic regions
and in faulted areas, or in dormant
volcanic structures. Natural gas and
oil reservoirs have demonstrated
that a great many formations are ca-
pable of storing gas for millions of
years. Figure 19: Geological storage options (Source: IPCC 2007)

In CO2 sequestration, long term storage safety is paramount. Further geological surveys are
necessary to map the global storage potential, but in areas of petroleum activity the geology is
already well mapped. Gas and liquid injections for EOR has also provided valuable information
on how CO2 can be safely stored for global warming mitigation purposes.

CO2 can be stored in a variety of geological settings, in sedimentary basins, in depleted oil and
gas fields, saline formations, and deep unmineable coal seams. Suitable storage formations can
occur both in on- shore and offshore sedimentary basins.

Storage potential in geological formations

Not all sedimentary basins are suitable for CO 2 storage; some are too shallow and others are
dominated by rocks with low permeability or poor confining characteristics. Basins suitable for
CO2 storage have characteristics such as thick accumulations of sediments, permeable rock
formations saturated with sa- line water (saline formations), extensive covers of low porosity
rocks (acting as seals) and structural sim- plicity (IPCC 2005).

The IPCC special report on CCS (2005) estimates the worldwide technical potential for storage
in geologi- cal formations to be at least 2,000 Gt CO 2. This is only the lower bound, and the
IPCC believes the capacity may be many times higher, but the upper limit estimates are
uncertain due to insufficient charting and disagreements on methodology. The capacity for
storing CO2 in depleted petroleum reservoirs is known with larger certainty. In most cases this
kind of storage is considered as safe, since the formations have already proven themselves
capable of storing gas for millions of years, and since the geology of the for- mations has been
extensively surveyed.
 Estimated capacity for some storage options

Globalcapacity, Globalcapacity,
Storageoption lowestestimate(GtCO2) highestestimate(GtCO2)

Depletedoilandgasreservoirs 675* 900*

Deepsalineaquifers 1000
Uncertain,butpossibly10,000

* These estimates may increase by 25 percent, when undiscovered oil and gas fields are included (IPCC 2005b).

Potential storage sites are likely to be broadly distributed in many of the world’s sedimentary
basins, lo- cated in the same regions as many of the world’s greatest emission sources.

Experiences in CO2 storage

The engineered injection of CO2 into subsurface geological formations was first undertaken in
Texas, USA, in the early 1970s, as part of EOR projects.

There are four industrial-scale storage projects in operation today: the Sleipner project and the
Snøhvit project in Norway, the In Salah project in Algeria, and the Weyburn EOR project in
Canada. Annually, about 4 MtCO2 that would otherwise have been released into the
atmosphere, are captured and stored in geological formations.

Sleipner: 10 million tonnes stored since 1996

At the Sleipner field in the North
Sea, situated about 250 km off
the coast of Norway and operated
by Statoil. This was the first large
scale geo- logical CO2 storage
project, started in 1996.
Approximately 1 Mt CO2 is stored
each year. The produced natu- ral
gas in the Sleipner field contains
up to 9 percent CO2. To meet
com- mercial specification this
concentra- tion must be reduced
to 2.5 percent. When a tax on CO 2
emissions was in- troduced in
Norway in 1991, this was a
sufficient economic incentive for
Statoil to start the Sleipner
storage project for the CO 2 they
were already
removing from their natural gas. Figur 20: Sleipner CO2 Storage Project (Source: IPCC 2007)

The CO2 from Sleipner is injected into the Utsira formation – a brine saturated unconsolidated
sandstone about 800-1000m below the sea floor. At its widest, this saline formation is 50 km
wide and it stretches for 500 km in length. The Utsira formation has a very large storage
capacity, in the order of 1-10 GtCO2.
The In Salah Gas Project (Algeria)
The In Salah Gas Project, located in the central Saharan region of Algeria and operated by BP,
is the world’s first large-scale CO2 storage project in a gas reservoir. The Krechba Field at In
Salah produces natural gas containing up to 10 percent CO 2 from several geological reservoirs
and delivers to markets in Europe after processing and stripping the CO 2 to meet commercial
specifications.

The CO2 is re-injected into a sandstone reservoir at a depth of 1800m. The top seal is a thick
succession of mudstones up to 950m thick. CO 2 is injected in the water-filled parts of the
reservoir, below the gas- bearing part. The injected CO 2 is expected to eventually migrate into
the area of the current gas field after depletion of the gas zone.

Injection started in April 2004 and up to 1.2 MtCO 2 are stored annually. Over the life of the
project, it is estimated that 17 MtCO2 will be stored.

Figure 21: Schematic of the In Salah Gas Project, Algeria (Source: IPCC 2007)

Ketzin onshore storage (Germany)

The Ketzin (former: CO2SINK) project started in 2004, with the aim of demonstrating long- term
geo- logical storage of CO2 in a saline aquifer. Eighteen industrial partners and research
institutions from nine European countries are involved in the project, coordinated by the GFZ
German Research Centre for Geosciences.

In summer 2008, the asset went into operation. Over a period of three years, around 60,000
tonnes of highly pure (›99 percent) CO2 has been stored at a depth of between 600 and 800m.

The storage site is near a small town, Ketzin, west of Berlin. As the test site is close to a
metropolitan area, it provides a unique opportunity to develop a European showcase for
onshore CO2 storage. The site is therefore equipped with an information centre which is open to
the public.

The project has developed an in-situ laboratory for CO 2 storage to fill the gap between the
numerous conceptual engineering and scientific studies on geological storage and a fully-
fledged onshore storage demonstration.
 Storage of natural gas
Underground natural gas storage proj- ects have operated successfully for al- most a century in many par

A total of 634 geological deposits for produced natural gas have been estab- lished in 25 countries. The to

Figure 22: Natural gas storage in Europe, Central Asia and USA (Source: IP

To characterise the underground environment and understand the processes which happen
there, detailed analysis are being made of samples of rocks, fluids and micro-organisms
gathered there. The project involves intensive monitoring of the injected CO 2 using a broad
range of geophysical and geo- chemical techniques, the development and benchmarking of
numerical models, and the definition of risk-assessment strategies.

Post-injection measurements, including time-lapse vertical seismic profiling transects along

selected azimuths, cross-well seismic topography, and saturation logs, show that CO 2 migration
under gravity slowed greatly two months after injection, matching model predictions that
significant CO2 is trapped as relative permeability decreases. As expected, CO 2 dissolved rapidly
into brine, causing pH to fall and calcite and metals to be dissolved.

Storage safety
Storage safety is a fundamental aspect of CCS. It is of utmost importance that the stored CO 2
does not leak and cause harm. For climate purposes, the CO 2 has to remain in the storage
reservoir as long as re- quired in a climate perspective. The IPCC estimates the probability for
the CO2 to remain in the storage reservoir in a long-term scenario as high.

For large-scale CO2 storage projects, assuming that the sites are well selected, designed,
operated and appropriately monitored, it is likely that the fraction of stored CO 2 retained is
more than 99 percent over the first 1000 years. Similar fractions retained are likely for longer
periods of time (IPCC 2005).

Before selecting a site the geological setting must be characterised to determine if the
overlying cap rock will provide an effective seal and if there is a sufficiently voluminous and
permeable storage forma- tion. Techniques developed for the exploration of oil and gas
reservoirs, natural gas storage sites and liquid waste disposal sites are suitable for
characterising geological storage sites for CO2.
Many natural gas deposits are situated in populated areas. The 1085
million m³ deposit underneath the Berlin Olympic Stadium is a good
example. (Source: GASAG)
When geological storage formations are properly selected and operated, leakage is highly
unlikely. But there are scenarios in which CO 2 can escape its storage reservoir, either as abrupt
leakage through injec- tion well failure, or up an abandoned well, or as gradual leakage
through undetected faults, fractures or wells.

Several techniques are available to remedy a leakage situation. In many cases standard well
repair tech- niques would suffice. In more serious cases, the injected CO 2 can be produced back
from the storage res- ervoir and reinjected into a more suitable storage structure. These are
nevertheless extreme cases. The main assumption is that properly stored CO 2 will not leak.

Even if there should be a leakage in a worst case scenario, there can be no catastrophic failure.
CO2 can- not explode, and if accidents did occur in the injection phase, the emissions would be
small and only dangerous in the immediate vicinity of the injection well where the accident
happened.

A report on the best practice for the storage of CO 2 in saline aquifers has been developed by
the EU projects SACS and CO 2STORE. The report aims at providing technically robust guidelines
for effective and safe storage.

What happens when CO2 is geologically stored?

Storage of CO2 will differ according to what type of storage reservoir you choose. The two
options that are in use today are depleted oil and gas field and saline aquifers.

After injection of CO2, there are various physical and geochemical trapping mechanisms that
prevent the injected gas from migrating to the surface from a suitable saline formation or oil or
gas field: an impen- etrable cap rock, the sponge-like property of the reservoir, dissolution and
eventually mineralisation of the CO2 (CO2GeoNet, 2009).

The storage reservoirs consist of porous rock, mainly sandstone. The billions of microscopic
pores in the sedimentary rock allow CO 2 to be stored in much the same way as water is
contained in a sponge. CO2 is injected at depths of below 800-1000m, where the pressure and
temperature keeps it in a natural su- percritical form. Supercritical CO 2 has properties midway
between a gas and a liquid, expanding to fill its containment space like a gas but with a density
like that of a liquid. This is the ideal state for efficient utilisation of the storage space in the
pores of sedimentary rocks.

The residual trapping mechanism can most easily be compared with that of filling a sponge with
water - the liquid is contained in many individual chambers within it.

A thick layer of shale and clay rock above the storage formation blocks upward migration of
CO2. This impermeable layer is known as the cap rock. Capillary forces also retain the CO 2 in
the pore spaces of the formation, providing additional physical trapping. In gas reservoirs CO 2
will eventually migrate down- wards, because it is denser than natural gas.

In the long term, geochemical trapping mechanisms like dissolution and mineralisation increase
stor- age safety. The CO2 reacts with the host rock and the water inside it. Water saturated
with CO2 is slightly denser than the original formation water, and therefore sinks down into the
formation rather than rising toward the surface. Some of the dissolved CO 2 reacts chemically
with the rock minerals, and is converted to solid carbonate minerals. The multiple trapping
mechanisms make the risk of leakage lower over time, as most of the gas eventually settles
deep in the formation in a diluted or mineralised form.
Side effects of CO2 storage
There are objections against storage of CO 2, pointing at still unknown risks for humans and the
environ- ment. These are risks aspects which have to be included in investigations of potential
storage sites.

Drinking water
In depleted oil and gas reservoirs, there used to be oil and gas in the tiny pores of the stone.
For saline aquifers, the sandstone is already filled with brine (very salty water). When CO 2 is
stored in the aquifer, some of the CO2 is dissolved in the brine, and the rest of the brine is
replaced and pushed sideward to- wards the fringes of the reservoir. The major increase in
reservoir pressure will occur directly around the injection site. The pressure then drops rapidly
the further one moves away from the injection site/bore hole. At the fringes of the reservoir,
there will hence only be a smaller increase in pressure.

The amount of CO2 which dissolves in the water varies according to in situ temperature,
pressure and wa- ter salinity and composition. Rates of solution can be estimated from
published datasets and site specific laboratory measurements.(Cooper et al., 2009)

The pressure inside the reservoir increases with the CO 2 injection, in the same way as it decline
when producing natural gas and oil. One fear is whether increase in pressure could lead to
upward movement of brine through a sequence of layers into shallow groundwater bodies.

Various studies (Bergman and Winter, 1995, Birkholzer et al, 2009) nevertheless claim that such
brine mi- gration is very unlikely. Firstly, examination of storage sites will be done along the
fringes of the reservoir and make sure that there are no potential leakage paths for brine to
migrate along. Secondly, the brine will only migrate as much as the overpressure allows it to.
With one bar pressure increase, water can mi- grate 10m upwards. For water to reach potable
ground water layers, the pressure in the fringe areas of the reservoirs will have to increase by
more than 80 bars, and this can be prevented through careful and continuous monitoring of the
reservoir pressure.

Cap rock breakage

Another risk concerns the
resistance and strength of the cap
rock. If the pressure in the
reservoir becomes too high, the
cap rock could eventu- ally break,
leading to migration of CO2 and
brine into shallower layers. The
risk can be handled by making
tests of the cap rock before
starting injec- tions. Based on such
tests, the resis- tance values and
strength of the cap rock are
calculated. During injection, the
operators make sure that these
values are not exceeded. Based on
experiences from the oil and gas sec- Figure 23: The pressure development in Tubåen
tor, there are well known methods reservoir at Snøhvit. (Source: Teknisk Ukeblad, 2011)
for monitoring the pressure in the
reser- voir and in the wells.
One example for the value of pressure monitoring is the CO 2 storage project at Snøhvit in north
Norway. Here, the CO2 injection has been more difficult than expected. The capacity in the
storage reservoir Tubåen turned out to be lower than originally calculated. As a result, the CO 2
did not migrate as expected
 Lacq, Total (France)
In January 2010, Total launched Europe’s first industrial-scale CCS chain demonstration
project at its gas processing plant at Lacq in south-west France.

The €60 million project uses oxyfuel combustion technology developed by Air Liquide. The
project aims to capture around 120,000 tonnes of CO 2 over a two year period. Alstom
supplied the retrofit of a 30MW conventional boiler for oxy-firing combustion for the pilot
plant. The captured gas is trans- ported by pipeline and injected into a depleted natural gas
reservoir 4500m below ground at Rousse, 27 kilometres from Lacq.

The Rousse gas field was chosen as a suitable CO 2 storage site following studies in 2006 of
depleted gas fields operated by Total in the region. Its geological structure is well known
and is generally con- sidered suitable for safe, long-term storage of CO 2 from the Lacq pilot.

This reservoir is made of porous rock which becomes impregnated with CO 2 and the gas is
then trapped there just as the natural gas (also containing CO 2) was for thousands of years.
The quantity of CO2 to be injected during the demonstration project is much smaller than
the volume of natural gas originally contained in the reservoir.

Above the Rousse reservoir is a gastight “lid” of marl and clay 2000m thick. This formation is
more than 35 million years old and remained intact when the Pyrenees were formed. Rousse
is geologically isolated from other reservoirs in the region and is not connected to any active
aquifer (i.e. porous un- derground rock impregnated with water). Therefore, Rousse offers
optimum conditions for long-term safety.

Mountaineer (USA)
American Electric Power (AEP) and Alstom began operating a small-scale test of the
technology at the coal power plant Mountaineer in New Haven, West Virginia, in September
2009, capturing up to 90 percent of CO 2 from 20MW of generating capacity. The captured gas
– at a rate of more than 100,000 t/y – has been compressed and injected for permanent
storage about 1609m below ground. The proj- ect ended, as planned, in spring 2011.

through the storage formation and the reservoir pressure rose quickly. After only three years of
injection, the reservoir was full. Figure 23 shows the development of the reservoir pressure
during the injection period from 2008 to 2011.

The experiences from Snøhvit clearly show that it is feasible to measure the pressure in a
reservoir and hence avoid exceeding the maximum pressure limit.

Earthquakes
Even an earthquake is unlikely to release large amounts of CO 2 that is properly stored. Firstly,
CO2 will not be stored in areas where high magnitude earthquakes or other geological events
are likely to occur. Secondly, earthquakes happen regularly in areas where water, oil or gas is
stored in the ground the same way CO2 will be stored. As yet, there are no known occurrences
of massive eruptions of water or petro- leum from the ground during such events. The trapping
mechanisms are too strong for more than small amounts of the CO 2 to be released even under
such dramatic circumstances.
Monitoring
In order to be sure that the CO 2 is behaving as expected
in the reservoir, the storage site has to be care- fully
monitored throughout the storage process and after
injection has ended. Before injections starts,
geoscientists carry out a site characterisation. After
injection has started, they will observe the injection
performance and on-going reservoir properties.

Monitoring includes different technologies, of which the

most important are seismic data, gravity and direct
measurements of the CO2 concentrations, pressure or
fluid composition in the injected storage reservoir
(Cooper et al, 2009). The choice of monitoring methods
depends on the storage site and factors as depth,
temperature and compositional properties of the
geological layers. The characteristics of the surface play
a role in the selection process.

Direct measurement normally means that different

properties are measured via access into the storage
reservoir via the well-bores. Measuring emissions at the
surface above the injection site is another form of
direct measurement.

The indirect monitoring tools – seismic, gravity and

electromagnetic – are the most important way to depict
the properties of the underground geological
formations. The results are fed into 3D computer
models that can describe reality with high degree of
precision.

Seismic imaging is carried out by sending out energy

waves into geological formations. Because the un-
derground consists of different layers of stone, they will
reflect this energy back in the form of different sound
waves. The reflected signals are stored and seismic
profiles or images created.

Seismic imaging is an extremely powerful tool.

However, it also has some restrictions, such as limited
vertical resolution for features less than 10m thick and
unreliable images for formations below some rock types
which to a certain degree inhibit the seismic waves. It is
more challenging to carry out seismic monitoring on
than offshore. On land, surface properties can have
implications for seismic acquisitions, and it is more
expensive to carry out.

Gravity measures reveal changes in density for a

vertical rock column. Such measurements are for in-
stance suitable in order to detect where CO 2 displaces
saline brine in a subsurface reservoir as displace- ment
causes lower density.

Finally, electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), or

electrical resistivity imaging (ERI), is a geophysical
tech- nique for imaging sub-surface structures from
electrical measurements made at the surface, or by
elec- trodes in one or more boreholes.

At Ketzin, outside Berlin, one of the main research tasks

is to develop and test a reliable and complete
monitoring process. Here, they combine seismic
surveys, ERT and the continual monitoring of the pres-
sure and temperature in the reservoir. With their so-
called multi-disciplinary monitoring concept, they are
able to detect even small quantities of CO2.

The most important result from the research at Ketzin

is that the actual observations correspond with the
modelling of the CO2. This shows that it is possible to
model the reservoir and the behaviour of the CO2 with
high degree of precision before injection begins.
Further results from Ketzin are that there is no leakage
detected and that the geological system has attained a
dynamic equilibrium.
CO2 in enhanced oil recovery
EOR is mainly achieved by injecting different substances into the oil reservoir, i.e. gas
injection, chemical injection or microbial injection. The most commonly used option for EOR is
the injection of gas.

Oil displacement by CO2 injection relies on the phase behaviour of the mixtures of the gas and
the crude oil, which depends on reservoir temperature, pressure and the composition of the
crude oil.

In these applications, more than half and up to two thirds of the injected CO 2 returns with the
produced oil and is usually re-injected into the reservoir to minimise operating costs. The
remainder is trapped in the oil reservoir by various means.

Figure 24: CO2 can be used to improve oil recovery. CO 2 is usually pumped into the reservoir for
one month, and then water injected for one month, in a continuing cycle. The diagram shows
how tertiary recovery increases oil production at the Weyburn oil field in Canada (Source:
Freund & Kårstad 2007).

In the USA, 30Mt of CO 2 are injected into 82 different oilfields every year. Initially, CO 2
separated in indus- trial processes was used, but this has gradually been replaced by cheaper
gas from natural CO2 reservoirs in geological formations. Only 10 percent of the CO 2 used in EOR
today comes from industrial sources. In these projects there has been no environmental
motivation for injecting CO2 into the oil reservoirs. Therefore, little is known about the storage
safety of the reservoirs in Northern America, with the excep- tion of the Weyburn project in
Canada (IPCC 2005b).

In the early stages of CCS development, EOR projects may prove useful to CO 2 capture
technology. Using CO2 in EOR would also contribute to the deployment of necessary and costly
infrastructure. The extra revenue from EOR can finance CO 2 pipelines, injection installations
and power plants with CO2 capture, which will enable CO 2 injections for a long time after oil
production has been closed down.

The EOR projects should nevertheless be carefully planned and designed. It should also be
made sure that as large a share of CO 2 as possible is permanently stored. In this context, it is
especially important that all the CO 2 that returns with the produced oil is re-injected into the
reservoir.

Weyburn & Great Plains Synfuels Plant

The Weyburn oilfield is situated in Canada, close to the USA border. In October 2000 EnCana
started in- jection of CO2 into the field to improve oil recovery. The CO 2 is transported through
a 325 km pipeline from Dakota Gasification Company’s coal gasification plant in North Dakota.
Around 20 Mt of CO2 will be injected, extending the expected life span of the field by 25 years.
Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) produces syngas from lignite, which is manufactured into
many dif- ferent products, such as natural gas, methanol and fertiliser. This is a commercial
project where the company separates and sells CO 2. The CO2 is separated in the industrial
process, so no separate capture equipment is needed. The plant has been running since 1984,
using 6 Mt of lignite a year. It is the first gasification plant in the world to sell CO 2 for EOR.

The geological conditions around Weyburn are well suited for long-term CO 2 storage. The
Petroleum Technology Research Center has conducted a four-year cross-field study of the
storage conditions, in cooperation with field operator EnCana. Seismic surveys have charted the
distribution of CO2 in the geo- logical formations, and a model to calculate storage capacity has
been developed. A risk evaluation con- cluded that most of the injected CO 2 will remain in the
reservoir for more than 5000 years.
Carbon capture and storage is safe,
accessible and necessary
There is a great deal we can do to prevent global warming. We need to replace as much fossil
fuel energy as possible with renewable alternatives, and we need to replace fossil fuels in our
cars with alternative fu- els. We have to end deforestation of the rainforests, and we need to
conserve energy. In addition to this, we need to capture and store CO 2. These are the most
important reasons why:

• We use so much fossil fuel energy that it will take many decades to replace it all with
renewable al- ternatives. In fact, world energy consumption is likely to increase in the next
decades because world population is growing and more people are moving from poverty to
demand the same commodities as those enjoyed in developed nations such as Europe and
the USA.

• A relatively small number of emission sources are responsible for a very large portion of the
total global emissions. That means a relatively small number of CCS plants can cut global
emissions by a very large amount.

• Some emissions cannot be removed in any other way. Certain industrial processes, such as
the manu- facturing of cement and steel, emit massive amounts of CO 2. In fact, a fifth of all
CO2 emitted comes from industrial processes and, while some of these can be improved or
replaced to reduce their im- pact, these emissions cannot be completely eliminated as long
as we need the products they produce.

• We have no time to lose. CCS means we can start removing CO 2 right now from power plants
and industrial facilities that already exist and that we know will continue emitting CO 2 for
decades to come. Opportunities like this cannot be ignored when climate action is so
urgently needed to save the planet.

Fossil fuel energy

More than half of the global emissions of greenhouse gases come from the use of oil, coal and
natural gas. There is no way we can stop climate change unless we drastically reduce these
emissions. The obvi- ous solution is to stop using fossil fuels, and in long term we should. This
will require a massive change of energy policy and markets globally.

In 2009, we used about 115,000 TWh of fossil energy. If we were to build enough wind turbines
to replace all this fossil energy, it would take approximately 50 million new turbines. If
construction began now - one new turbine every minute - it would take almost 100 years to
finish. We do not have that much time to play with.

Until enough wind turbines, hydro-power plants, solar panels and other renewable alternatives
have been built, we will continue using fossil fuels. And as the global population grows, and
poorer coun- tries develop, energy demand will increase, making the quick replacement of
fossil fuels even harder to achieve.

Large emission sources

The 2000 largest CO2 point sources in the world account for 40 percent of the total global
emissions. That makes CCS a potentially very effective way of achieving considerable cuts in
emissions. Some of these emission sources literally emit as much CO 2 as a small country.
Figure 25: Large emission sources in the world (Source: IPCC).

Figure 26: Global storage capacity (Source: IPCC).

Figure 27: Global oil and gas fields. According to the IPCC the world’s oil and gas regions are very
well surveyed. Many empty petroleum fields can hold huge amounts of CO 2 (Source: Freund & Kårstad
2007).
Also, quite often large sources of CO 2 are clustered together within a small geographical area,
making them even better suited for CCS, as they can share some of the infrastructure, such as
using the same pipelines to transport the captured gas and sharing storage locations.

Industrial emissions
Most people are unaware of concrete as a source of pollution. But production of cement is
actually one of the greatest industrial sources of CO2 in the world.

Cement is made from limestone or chalk - natural minerals that contain carbon, calcium and
oxygen. To make cement, you remove some of the oxygen and most of the carbon in a process
that involves heat- ing the limestone until the carbon is released as CO 2. At present there are
no practical alternatives to this process.

Production of steel is another huge emitter of CO 2, as is the production of important chemicals,

such as ammonia and methanol.

We have no time to lose

Cutting greenhouse gases is becoming increasingly urgent, as it becomes ever clearer how
dramatic the consequences will be if we don’t. The longer it takes for the first large-scale
facilities to be realised, the longer it will take for the next hundred to be built. To be able to
reduce emissions fast enough, it is im- perative to have the first ten full-scale CCS plants
operating now.

We cannot afford not to use the solutions available to us. CCS alone will not remove all
emissions but it can take a large share. And in combination with renewable energy, energy
conservation and other climate change mitigation solutions, it can make a very big difference.
For all these reasons, we need carbon capture and storage.
References
Bergman, M. and Winter, E.M., 1995, Disposal of carbon dioxide in aquifers in the U.S. Energy
Convers. Manage. 36, 523-526

Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Fu Tsang, C., 2009: Large-scale impact of CO 2 storage in deep saline
aquifers: A sensitivity study on pressure response in stratified systems, International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 181

CAIT, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, http://cait.wri.org/

Copenhagen Synthesis Report, 2009, Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Schellnhuber, H.J., Alcamo,
J., Barker, T., Kammen, D.M., Leemans, R., Liverman, D., Munasinghe, M., Osman-Elasha, B.,
Stern, N., Wæver, O. www. climatecongress.ku.dk

Cooper, C. et al. (2009): “A Technical Basis for Carbon Dioxide Storage”, prepared by the CO 2
Capture Project. Published in the UK by CPL Press, Printed in the UK and USA by Chris Fowler
International, London and New York

Dahl-Jensen, D., Presentation at the “Melting Ice” Conference 28.04.2009: “The Greenland Ice
Sheet in a Changing Climate”.

Den Elzen M., Höhne N. (2008): Climatic Change 91: 249-274 „Reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions in Annex I and non-Annex-I countries for meeting concentration stabilization targets”

Element Energy, Pöyry Energy & British Geological Survey 2007: Development of a CO 2

European Wind Energy Association, Wind in power, European statistics (2010)

Freund, P & Kaarstad, O., 2007: Keeping the lights on,

Universitetsforlaget, Oslo CO2 GeoNet, The booklet “What does CO2

geological storage really mean? (2009)

Global CCS Institute (GCCSI) Accelerating the uptake of CCS: Industrial use of captured carbon
dioxide, (March 2011)

Holt T. & Lindberg E. (1988) Miljøvennlig gasskraft kombinert med økt oljeutvinning- En forstudie, Sintef

International Energy Agency’s (IEA), World Energy Outlook 2009 and 2011

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

IPCC 2005a Summary for Policymakers. IPCC Special Report. Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change

IPCC 2005b IPCC Special Report. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. A Special Report of
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPCC 2007a- Working Group III contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change Summary for
policymakers
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1
IPCC 2007d: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate. Based on a draft prepared by Bernstein et al.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm. pdf

The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science. I. Allison,
N. L. Bindoff, R.A. Bindschadler, P.M. Cox, N. de Noblet, M.H. England, J.E. Francis, N. Gruber,
A.M. Haywood, D.J. Karoly, G. Kaser, C. Le Quéré, T.M. Lenton, M.E. Mann, B.I. McNeil, A.J.
Pitman, S. Rahmstorf, E. Rignot, H.J. Schellnhuber, S.H. Schneider, S.C. Sherwood, R.C.J.
Somerville, K.Steffen, E.J. Steig, M. Visbeck, A.J. Weaver. The University of New South Wales
Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC), Sydney, Australia, 60pp.

IPCC, 2011: Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources
and Climate Change Mitigation [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P.
Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow
(eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

North Sea Basin Task Force A study into North Sea CO 2 cross-border transport and storage (One
North Sea, 2010)

Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) The CO2 Storage Atlas, Norwegian North
Sea (Dec 2011)
Teknisk Ukeblad, 2011 http://www.tu.no/olje-gass/article286534.ece

%20[03.11.11] US Energy Information Administration (EIA), International

Energy Statistics, (2011)

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8 [08.09.2011]

Zero Emission Platform (ZEP), The Costs of CO2 Transport (2011)