WESTCARB, Carbon Sequestration, and Coal

1
WESTCARB, Carbon Sequestration, and Coal

• Or, Workin in a coal mine, goin down, down
  Lee Dorsey
• Terry Surles
• Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
• November 18, 2008

2
EIAs Annual Energy Outlook Projections More
Coal
3
World Electricity Consumption
Natural Gas 25
Nuclear12
Natural Gas 18
Coal 37
Nuclear 16
Renewables19
Renewables 20
Oil 7
Coal 38
Oil 8
61 Growth
2001 161 Quads
2025 259 Quads
Worldwide electricity consumption is projected to
grow at an average annual rate of 2.3 between
2001 - 2025
Source IEO2004, Table 16
4
U.S. Electricity Consumption Projections are
for an Increase(!!!) in Coal Use
Renewables9
Natural Gas 16
Renewables 9
Coal 55
Natural Gas 14
Coal 53
Nuclear18
Nuclear 21
33 Growth
Oil 2
Oil 3
2005
2025
Source AEO2006, Table 8
5
Or, to Look at It Another Way, to Replace the
Current USA 50 Coal-fired Capacity

• Hydro 500 facilities the size of Hoover Dam
• Wind 5000 more 200MW wind farms
• For Hawaii, largest wind farm is about 30MW
• Would need to deal with grid issues resulting
  from as-available energy and require spinning
  reserve
• Nuclear 300 new one Gigawatt reactors
• Major efficiency and conservation advances
• Art Rosenfelds the efficiency bomb of 3/year
• Major grid upgrades with all of this

6
Technology is a Key Significant Advances Needed
to Achieve the Base Case
where todays technology will take us

• 2100
• 75 of electricity non-fossil
• End-use efficiency increases 1/yr
• 2050
• Electric generation 67 efficient
• Passenger vehicles average 50mpg

Stabilization pathway
1300 GT C
Where more advanced versions of current
technologies will take us
480 GT C
Path we need to be on to stabilize atmospheric
CO2
To stabilize at 550ppm, Carbon/GDP must be lt10
of todays by 2100
7
Carbon Management No Silver Bullet, Need to
Track Life Cycles
Carbon Management
Decarbonization CO2 Btu
Sequestration
Efficiency
CO2 atm CO2 emitted
lt
lt
lt
Btu GDP

• Regional Partnerships
• Capture/storage

• End-use Technologies
• Demand response

• Nuclear
• Renewables

8
So, Why Carbon Sequestration also called Carbon
Capture and Storage?

• The country will continue to use indigenous
  energy resources, i. e., coal, for electricity
  generation
• Car owners have more political schwack compared
  to power plant operators
• Power plants cannot move to another country, as
  other carbon intensive industries can
• Can recover carbon dioxide from fossil-fired
  processes, BUT
• Cost and energy penalties
• Location of acceptable geologic formations
• And, did I mention COST

9
Cost Basics Illustrate that Carbon Capture and
Storage is Not a Simple Alternative

• CCS has three distinct process steps
• At issue is what size of carbon tax or what
  effective cap and trade program - will make CCS
  economic
• Capture is about 50 of the cost
• Technology for capture from standard pulverized
  coal units is only in early stages of development
• Estimated at 45 energy and financial penalty
• Compression is another 25
• Injection and monitoring is an additional 25
• Long-term liability issues

10
Carbon Sequestration An answer for continued
use of domestic energy resources

• Two major challenges for economically viable,
  environmentally acceptable CCS
• Lower cost of capture currently up to 45 cost
  penalty on PVC systems
• Reducing uncertainty of storage permanence,
  safety, etc.
• Need to resolve both to gain acceptance to keep
  coal as option
• Hedge bets on Integrated Gasification/Combined
  Cycle (IGCC) coal-fired power plants

11
Coal Plant CO2 Emissions and CO2 Storage Capacity
3,700,000
200,000,000
/\/\/\/\
This represents 1,990 years of US storage and
40,800 years of world storage at current CO2
emissions levels.
12
Sleipner Project, North Sea

• 1996 to present
• 1 Mt CO2 injection/yr
• Seismic monitoring

Picture compliments of Statoil and LBNL
13
Weyburn CO2-EOR and Storage Project

• 2000 to present
• 2.7 Mt/year CO2 injection
• CO2 from the Dakota Gasification Plant in the
  U.S.

Photos and map courtesy of PTRC, Encana, and LBNL
14
In Salah Gas Project
Gas Processing and CO2 Separation Facility
Krechba, Algeria Gas Purification - Amine
Extraction 1 Mt/year CO2 Injection Operations
Commenced in June, 2004
Slide courtesy of BP and LBNL
15
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships
Operating Since 2003 Validation Phase Field Tests
Per partnership, plan for one million tons CO2

• Representing
• gt400 Organizations
• 40 States
• 4 Canadian Provinces
• 3 Indian Nations
• 34 cost share

Big Sky
PCOR
MRCSP
MGSC
WESTCARB
Field Test Type
Southwest
Southeast
Oil bearing (9)
Gas bearing (1)
Saline formation (10)
Coal seam (5)
Terrestrial (11)
16
Summary of DOE Phase III Projects

• Sources
• Natural gas processing facilities, including H2S
  gt 40
• Ethanol plants
• At least 2 post combustion capture technologies
• Oxy-combustion peaking power plant - WESTCARB
• IGCC power plant
• Up to 3MT of CO2 per year provided from each
  source
• Geology
• 6 deep Saline formations, carbonates and
  sandstones - from 3,000 to 13,000 feet deep
• 1 depleted oil field (10,000 ft deep)
• Comprehensive site characterization, modeling,
  monitoring, and risk assessment
• WESTCARB is the Western Regional Carbon
  Sequestration Partnership one of seven such
  partnerships

17
Phase III WESTCARB Objectives - Framing the
Debate

• Conduct a 10 year, commercial-scale CCS test (1
  million tons CO2)
• Access the one of the best geologic target in
  California
• Use results to refine capacity estimates and
  qualify the Olcese and/or Vedder formation(s)
  for commercial application
• Project will utilize an advanced, commercial
  sequestration friendly oxy-combustion
  technology Clean Energy Systems (CES)
• Technology development supported by DOE and CEC
  since 1998
• First commercial-scale facility of its type in
  U.S.
• Demonstrate commercial-scale injection site
  characterization, operations, maintenance, risk
  assessment, and monitoring (Schlumberger)
• Conduct research advancing technologies in
  reservoir modeling/simulation and engineering,
  risk assessment, and measurement/monitoring
  (LBNL, LLNL, Stanford)
• The goal of the project is to establish that
  emission-free fossil power is possible and
  geologic sequestration is safe
• Address both regulatory and public perception
  issues

18
WESTCARB Features Strong and Diverse Partners
Phase III is 90M

• More than 80 organizations comprising
• Resource management environmental protection
  agencies and other regulators
• National laboratories and research institutions
• Climate project organizations and other
  nonprofits
• Oil and gas companies power companies pipeline
  companies
• Colleges and universities
• Trade associations and policy coordinating bodies
• About 30 are actively involved in Phase IIPhase
  III will have fewer active partners, with bigger
  roles, more akin to commercial projects
• Led by California Energy Commission (CEC)
• Phase III cost share gt23 million

19
WESTCARB Is Working with a New Oxy-Combustion
Technology

• Pre-combustion capture
• Focus on integrated gasification/combined cycle
  with carbon capture essentially bolting a
  chemical plant on to an electrical plant
• Post-combustion capture
• Very difficult to separate low pressure, low
  concentration (4) of carbon dioxide in
  atmospheric emissions stream
• Oxy-combustion - WESTCARB
• Cost penalties are up front with oxygen
  distillation from the atmosphere
• Post-combustion separation is simple

20
WESTCARB Phase III Test Was Developed From Phase
II Site Characterization Pilot

• Lead industrial partners Clean Energy Systems
  (CES), Schlumberger
• CES plans 50 MW Facilityat Kimberlina,
  California (on CES property)
• Plant will provide 250,000 tons of CO2 per year
  for four years
• CO2 injectivity testing in 2010full exhaust
  stream injectionto begin in 2011
• Initial geologic modeling, reservoir simulation,
  and risk assessment under way
• Mineral rights and permitting issues seem
  workable
• Long-term liability for CO2 unresolved

CES power generating system
21
Project Representative of Major Sequestration
Potential
22
WESTCARB Has Working Relationship With Regulators
to Continue in Phase III

• California is an underground injection control
  (UIC) mixed primacy state, meaning federal and
  state regulators have a say
• Both agencies have been supportive, but Region IX
  USEPA will have primacy

Gas ZoneCA DOGGR (Short-term Injectivity Test)
Saline ZoneU.S. EPA Region 9 (UIC Class V)
23
Three Permitting Processes Are Part of This
Project

• CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
• Draft Environmental Impact Report, if Kern County
• Application For Certification, if California
  Energy Commission
• UIC - Underground Injection Control permits
• USEPA Region IX has primacy
• NEPA - Federal Environmental Impact Statement
  requirements, as required for major federal
  actions
• Sidebar we will need to address this as part of
  our new Maui Smart Grid project

24
Initial Reservoir Simulations to Be Used for
Permitting Phase III Test
25
Multiple Regulatory Agencies for Permitting May
Create Issues

• Do permits need to converge?
• CES plans to submit completed AFC to CEC by
  September 2010
• Should this include the completed CEQA for the
  surface injection facilities?
• How much information from the UIC permit is
  needed?
• Is ISO study completion required?
• Related ISO Transmission Line Study will be
  completed in 9/09 (maybe, since credit market
  meltdown may delay power plant financing!)
• This is one of the reasons that overall program
  is needed evaluate and modify regulatory
  mechanisms

26
Understanding and Managing Risk Will Be Critical
for Phase III Activities

• Risk assessment program
• Comprehensive site safety plan
• Careful site characterization
• Old wells
• Subsurface geology
• Careful well construction and injection
• Prediction of plume behavior
• Comprehensive monitoring program
• Surface and groundwater
• Plume movement
• Seismicity
• Mitigation plan

27
Biggest Scientific Risks Identified

• Leakage through poor quality or aging injection
  well completions
• Leakage up abandoned wells
• Leakage due to inadequate caprock
  characterization
• Inconsistent or inadequate monitoring

Maturation of the technology and improved
regulations have mitigated most of these
problems for the industrial analogues
28
Risk Mitigation and Management Plan Is Being
Developed

• Multiple seals and secondary storage zones in the
  event of a primary seal breach
• Repair of leaking wells
• Dispersion of CO2 leaks under a variety of
  conditions
• Groundwater clean-up
• Depressurization and possible venting of CO2 from
  a compromised reservoir
• Factors beyond scientific issues may be more
  important Legal, Institutional, Financial, etc.

29
The Lack of Rules on Liability May Be a
Show-Stopper

• Tort litigation and mineral rights would result
  in new kinds of lawsuits
• Given US law, a deep pockets issue easy to win,
  regardless of facts
• Analogous to early lawsuits concerning water and
  air quality issues
• Who will own long-term storage and monitoring?
• Yucca-lite situation
• What are near-term issues that could result in
  lawsuits?
• Earthquakes
• Water availability
• The government must eventually produce
  rule-making concerning liability
• For example, a relative of the Price-Anderson Act

30
Implications of Longer-Term Monitoring - Who Has
the Liability?

• 1000 year period (Yucca-lite?)
• Repeat seismic surveys every 10 years
• 10 increase in cost over other CCS costs
• Non-financial issues
• Responsibility for monitoring
• Oversight and record keeping
• Responsibility for remediation

31
Temporal Evolution of Trapping Mechanisms
Storage security should increase with time at an
effective storage site.
Theoretical and experimental studies are needed
to confirm this hypothesis.
32
Project Outreach Strategy Linked to the Community
and Anticipating Issues

• Oil and agriculture are predominant Kern County
  industries
• Local community and public officials familiar
  with drilling and injection (steamflood)
  operations
• Industrial partnersClean Energy Systems and
  Schlumbergerare well established in community
• Local institutions/industrial firms also involved
  in WESTCARB from the beginning of the project
• California State UniversityBakersfield,
  Occidental Petroleum, Western States Petroleum
  Association, others
• Immediate neighbors to CES power plant (and
  injection site) are orchards and highways,
• Environmental justice will arise and must be
  addressed

33
Stakeholder Consultation
34
WESTCARB Phase III Project Provides Significant
Public Outreach Opportunity

• Clean Energy Systems oxy-combustion technology
  among lowest emitting fossil power systems
• full exhaust stream injected, zero emissions
• Easily accessed site surrounded by orchards and
  fruit processing plants
• Rocket-engine origins of CES technology a draw
  for media
• Site is hosting a concentrating solar power
  demo, furthering clean energy image
• Plans for visitor center under discussion with
  Clean Energy Systems and its partners excellent
  leverage opportunity for WESTCARB outreach

35
HNEI and WESTCARB Another Example of Linking
RD and Public Policy to Commercialization Process
Institutional Issues Regulations Incentives
Government