Selecting the Best Regional Sequestration Options

1
Selecting the Best Regional Sequestration Options

• Dick Rhudy
• EPRI

WESTCARB Annual Meeting October 27-28, 2004
Portland Oregon
2
Purpose

• The assessment is intended to help identify the
  best regional opportunities for carbon
  sequestration in the West Coast Region
• Subsequent analysis of actual pilot candidates
  will involve assessments at a greater level of
  specification, and perhaps quantification
• This is a working draft of the methodology and
  comments are welcome

3
Five Major Objectives Have Been Identified

• Cost
• Risk
• Regulations and permitting
• Environmental enhancements
• Public acceptance

4
The Value of Regional Alternatives Will Be
Measured Using Metrics for Each of the Important
Factors

• Cost of Capture, Transport, and Sequestration
  (one metric)
• Metric /ton of CO2 captured and sequestered
• Preference Cheaper is better
• Risk (one metric)
• Metric Capability of the storage media to
  prevent leakage and HSE impacts
• Preference Alternatives that minimize leakage
  (minimum pre-existing wells, minimum conductive
  faults, multiple seals, structural trap, etc.)
• Regulations and permitting (one metric)
• Metric Difficulty of obtaining permits or
  meeting regulations where the alternative would
  sited (existing land use)
• Preference Private land where with facilities
  would be easiest (Class II wells may exist at
  this site)

5
The Value of Regional Alternatives Will Be
Measured Using Metrics for Each of the Important
Factors (cont.)

• Public acceptance (4 metrics)
• Metric 1 Familiarity with energy projects,
  particularly fossil projects, in the region of
  the alternative
• Preference for metric 1 More projects over a
  longer time horizon is better
• Metric 2 Number of participating organizations
  and jobs created by the project
• Preference for metric 2 More participating
  organizations and jobs created, or sustained,
  because of the project (where jobs are most
  needed) is better
• Metric 3 Economic value of business created by
  the project
• Preference for metric 3 Greater economic value
  (multiplier) and importance of project to the
  local economy is desirable
• Metric 4 Number of businesses and people
  affected economically by the project
• Preference for metric 4 More businesses and
  people affected is better

6
The Value of Regional Alternatives Will Be
Measured Using Metrics for Each of the Important
Factors (cont.)

• Environmental enhancements (five metrics for
  terrestrial sequestration)
• Metric 1 Improving the health of the forest
  acres of forest improved (resistance to
  disease, pests, and fire)
• Preference for metric 1 More acres is better and
  more improvement is better
• Metric 2 Improving wildlife habitat for
  important species (degree of improvement and
  number of acres)
• Preference for metric 2 More acres and more
  improvement is better
• Metric 3 Preventing soil erosion and stream
  sedimentation
• Preference for metric 3 More acres improved and
  greater significance of the improvement is better
• Metric 4 Reclaiming poorly managed soils
• Preference for metric 4 More acres and greater
  degree of improvement in soils is better
• Metric 5 Recreational value (recreational value
  and closeness to populations)
• Preference for metric 5 Greater recreational
  value and closer to larger populations is better

7
The Relative Importance Is Assessed for Each
Objective
Note Hypothetical Values
8
Each Alternative Will Be Evaluated for Its
Performance with Respect to Each Objective
9
Comparison of Alternatives Is Achieved by
Combining Importance and Performance