European Efforts towards CCS and Confidence Building 012007/Presentations_WS_on_CB/05_BR… · >...

Workshop on Confidence Building in the long-term effectiveness of CCS, Tokyo, Japan, Jan. 24-25, 2007

European Efforts towards CCS andConfidence BuildingIsabelle Czernichowski-Lauriol

BRGM, Orléans, FranceCO2GeoNet Deputy Network Manager

[email protected]

> 2Workshop on Confidence Building in the long-term effectiveness of CCS, Tokyo, Japan, Jan. 24-25, 2007

Outline

1. European activities on CCS towards confidence building in the technology

2. CO2GeoNet activities towards confidence building in the safety and long-term effectiveness of CO2geological storage

3. Discussion around the Japanese position paper


1. European activities on CCS towards confidence building in the technology


Large portfolio of research projects since 1993> FP3: JOULE Project (1993-1995) ‘ The underground disposal of

carbon dioxide ’ sur la faisabilité du concept

> FP4: SACS (aquifer storage, Sleipner, Norway)

> FP5:• capture: AZEP, GRACE• aquifers: SACS2, CO2STORE• hydrocarbon reservoirs: WEYBURN, NGCAS• coal seams: RECOPOL, ICBM• natural analogues: NASCENT• Source-sink scenarios in Europe : GESTCO• Thematic network : CO2NET, CO2NET2


Large portfolio of research projects since 1993

> FP6:• Capture: ENCAP, ISCC, CLC GAS POWER, CACHET• Storage: CO2GeoNet, CO2ReMoVe, EU GeoCapacity, GRASP• Capture and Storage: CASTOR, CO2SINK• Hydrogen production: DYNAMIS (HYPOGEN PHASE 1)• Steel sector: ULCOS• International collaboration : InCA-CO2, INTAS

> National programmes and projects are now also active in a growing number of countries


European experts now agree that CCS is a solution

> Networks : CO2NET, CO2GeoNet and national networks

This level of confidence has been reached through:> Large cooperative research programmes, including

international collaborations> Amount of data and information acquired, shared knowledge> Best practice manuals : SACS, GESTCO, CO2STORE, …> European demonstration projects and field laboratories :

• Sleipner (Norway): 1 Mt/y since 1996• Snohvit (Norway): 0.75Mt/y starting 2007• K12B (Netherlands): 100 Kt (2004-2006)• Ketzin (Germany): 60 Kt over a few years, starting 2007• Esbjerg (Danemark): CASTOR capture pilot plant, 8 Kt/y since 2006• Montmiral CO2 field (France): natural analogue onshore• Latera (IT), Ciampino (IT), Auvergne (FR), Laarchee see (DE), Gulf of Trieste

(IT), Aagean sea (IT): natural seepage areas (terrestrial, lacustrine and marine)

> First analysis of current legal, economicand social issues


Recent announcements also demonstrate theconfidence European industry has in the technology> Vattenfall: 30 MWth coal-fired pilot boiler with CO2 capture at Schwarze

Pumpe in Germany, starting 2008> Total: retrofit a 30MW boiler with CO2 oxycombustion capture + storage at

Lacq – France, starting 2008> BP: Hydrogen&Electricity production from gas (350 MW) at Peterhead and EOR

in Miller field offshore UK, storing 1.8 Mt/y CO2, starting 2010> Shell&Statoil: 860 MW natural gas fired power plant at Tjeldbergodden, with

CO2 EOR in Norway, starting 2011> RWE: 450 MW IGCC power plant with onshore storage in Germany, starting

2014, and CCS retrofit to a coal-ed power station at Tilbury, UK, starting 2016 > E.ON UK: IGCC power plant with CO2 storage offshore UK in the southern

North Sea> Nuon: CO2 capture demonstration at its coal gasifier plant near Limburg. And

multi-fuel IGCC 1200 MW power plant in Eemshaven, NL> Powerfuel: 900 MW IGCC power plant at Hatfield colliery, UK, starting 2010> Progressive Energy: 900 MW IGCC power plant at Teeside, UK, starting 2009> SEQ International and ONS Energy: 50 MW power plant (oxy-fuel) and

EOR (0.2 Mt/y) near Drachten, NL


A step change is now vitalKey Recommendations from the ZEP Technological Platform:> Urgently implement 10-12 integrated, large-scale CCS

demonstration projects Europe-wide: to demonstrate a diverse range of infrastructure, technologies, fuels and storage locations

> Establish robust RD&D funding under the FP7 and national programmes: to reduce CO2 capture and power plants costs, to demonstrate the safety of CO2 storage, and to explore innovative concepts

> Prove beyond doubt that CO2 geological storage is bothpractical and safe. Zero tolerance for CO2 leakage. However, need to understand what could be the hazard should exposure occur.

> Establish a regulatory framework for storage: amend existing EU legislation by 2007, implement new EU guidelines for MS permitting by 2008

> Establish short- and long-term commercial incentives: clarify CCS status in EU-ETS and EU guidelines for State Aid by 2007, create earlymover funding mechanisms, develop an approval mechanism for CCS in JI/CDM projects

> Gain public support: generic EU-wide and local-focused outreach> Maximise cooperation at national, EU and international level


Major present European initiativesAt EU level:> ZEP: Technology Platform on Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants

including carbon dioxide capture and storage> FENCO-ERANET: initiative to strenghthen European research skills in

CCS by improving co-ordination between national agencies and governments> ULCOS : reduction of CO2 emissions in the steel sector> ECCP: European Climate Change Programme> CO2GeoNet: Network of Excellence on CO2 geological storage> FP7: 7th Research Framework Programme> EC communication in 2007: Major EU policy choices for CCS,

accompanied by a draft EU CCS regultory frameworkAt national levels:> National programmesAt international level:> NZEC, COACH: EU-China collaboration for « Near Zero Emissions Coal »

by 2020> IEA-GHG, CSLF


2. CO2GeoNet activities towards confidence building in the safety and

long-term effectiveness of CO2

geological storage


What is CO2GeoNet?

> CO2GeoNet is a European integrated scientificcommunity durably engaged in enabling theefficient and safe geological storage of CO2 as a solution for clean and climate-friendly energyproduction and consumption.

> Network of Excellence supported by theEuropean Commission


What is a Network of Excellence (NoE ) ?

> NoEs are one the Research Instruments launched by Europe in FP6

> Different to Cooperative research Projects (IPs, STREPs) , NoEs have the objectives of strengthening the European Research Area through promoting durableIntegration, Alignment and Joint Activities between Network Partners to form durable “virtual” and unique research centres for Europe

> NoEs address, promote, undertake and disseminate research excellence at European and international level


Why a NoE on CO2 geological storage?

> Storage is the critical path to CO2 capture and storage (CCS)- without storage capture is useless(capture is already possible –cost reduction & widespreadcommercial application are the most prominent issues)

> In the CCS chain: storage is of most concern to policy makers,regulators and the public

> Europe has led the way on CO2 storage R&D since 1991 (Joule 2)(the core group of research partners forms a critical mass of established joint research activity upon which the existing and newer R&D entrants can develop)

> A European public research body on CO2 geological storage is of utmost importance to develop the CCS technology and build confidence on CO2 storage


CO2GeoNet – European Network of Excellence on CO2 geological storage> 13 partners

> Over 100 researchers + PhD students (Joint program of activities revised annually • 3 types of activities : integration, joint research,

spreading of excellence

> Support by EC over 5 years (6 million €) from April 1st

2004, beyond 2009 the Network has to be funded independently

Denmark: GEUSFrance: BRGM, IFPGermany: BGRItaly: OGS, URSNetherlands: TNONorway: NIVA, RF, SPRUK: BGS, HWU, IMPERIAL


CO2GeoNet Specific Objectives

> Strengthen the European Research Area through the durable integration of CO2 storage research between the network members

> Grow the network, train the next generation of scientists & technologists and be a vehicle for forming new research projects

> Be the home for Europe’s CO2 storage lab R&D infrastructure and project data

> Provide excellent & impartial scientific advise/services and information to stakeholders- “one stop shop”

> Through research experience, collaboration and consultation be a leader in setting technical standards and best practise

> Collaborate internationally> Be the European authoritative body on geological storage of

CO2


CO2GeoNet Instances

> Governing Body: General Assembly –GA• Chair N.P. Christensen (GEUS)

> Management Board (April 2005-March 2007)• Coordinator N. Riley (BGS )• Network Manager S. Persoglia (OGS)• Deputy I Czernichowski( BRGM)

> Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)• Chair: J. Garnish


Integrating activities

> Improve data handling system across the network

> Share and develop research infrastructure for joint working

> Hold Joint workshops where teams present and discuss research and communication issues

> Develop new joint research projects

> Find funding opportunities

> Create a legal structure


Spreading of Excellence Activities

> Disseminate research needs and outcomes to stakeholders in Europe at all levels

> Provide information to government, policy makers and regulators

> Publish results in technical journals

> Develop and implement a postgraduate training programme

> Organize or co-organize conferences, seminars, workshops and professional training courses

> Disseminate through media, publications, radio webcast and TV broadcasts


Research areas

Structuration in teams for each research area and sub-area, involving key experts from Partners’ institutes


Active scientific programme months 13-36


Active Scientific programme months 25 - 42


Budget allocation (K€)

Important own contribution from the Network partners that demonstrates alignment of Partners’ internal research programmes

JRAP’s allocated budgets (in M€ )

2.6622.747TOTAL

1.5121.691OWN FUNDS

1.1501.056EU ALLOCATION

MONTHS 25- 42MONTHS 12-30 ORIGIN OF

FUNDS


Why study leakage (1)?

Leakage from geological storage is the main issue of concern with NGOs, the public, government and regulators

Health & SafetyEcosystem protectionResource/property damageCarbon creditsPublic & Regulatory AcceptanceEfficacy and risk of CCS compared to other climate management options

As industrial CCS sites are designed not to leak we need to study natural analoguesand conduct deliberate exposure experiments in order to learn what we can measureabove baseline conditions.

Source Pathway Target Response


> We need to be able to demonstrate what is, and what is not measurable and distinguishable from baseline conditions with regard to context, timing, processes, fluxes, doses and responses

> If we claim that a storage site is secure- we need to be able to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, beyond reasonable doubt.

> If it is wrongly claimed/perceived that a storage site is leaking- then we need to be confident that we can rely on an evidence base to revoke such claims

> We also need to be able to recognise leakage, should such an unlikely event occur, in order to manage risk, address public & stakeholder concerns/interests and fulfil regulatory obligations.

Why study leakage (2)?


> Latera & Ciampino (IT) / Laarcher See (DE) / Auvergne(FR): onshore natural gas seeps in various contexts

> Gulf of Trieste & Tyrrhenian sea (IT): submarine natural gas seeps

> Fjord region off Aalesund (NO): marine experiments> Montmiral: onshore natural CO2 field (FR)> Recopol site: onshore CO2-ECBM lab (DE)> …

These CO2GeoNet test sites enable to tackle leakage and associated Health, Safety and Environmental issues. Complement the ‘industrial’ demonstration sites studied

in CO2ReMoVe and other projects.

CO2GeoNet test sites, both natural and experimental


Latera (Italy) - CO2 seepages (with other gases) – volcanic origin> Previously studied in EU NASCENT project> Integrated cross-disciplinary study has been undertaken by CO2GeoNet> Geochemical, Geophysical, Remote sensing and Ecological studies to

characterize migration pathways, leakage rates and ecological impacts> System model developed - Collaboration with Quintessa

many gas vents, marked by poor vegetation


Geophysical and geochemical methods at Latera

Gun SeismicsGPR ERT

EMS EM31 Gravity

Soil gas

Gas flux

(courtesy of URS)


Latera - Open path infra-red laser

measures distance averaged atmospheric CO2 concentrations


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

CO2 % 80cmH2S ppm 80cm

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

ATP

rlu/g

at70

cmde

pth

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

Tota

lbac

teria

coun

ts

ATP rlu/g 70cmTotal counts (Bacteria/g) 70cm

CO (%

) & H

S (p

pm) a

t 80c

m2

2

Distance along profile (m)

across one transect – botany, microbiology (diversity), ecotoxicology together with gas sampling and mineralogy

Ecological studies at Latera

Bacteria counts


Ecological studies at Latera

Botanical assessment

Cleaning before soil sampling formicrobial analysis

Soil sampling forchemical and microbiological analysis

Ecotoxicology –Worm sampling


> White = Casi B12> Red = Thermal> Green = NDVI May> Yellow = Orthophoto> Cyan = Hyper B 41> Magenta = NDVI Oct

Fixed wing & helicopteracquired remotesensing

Remote sensing studies at LateraDetection of natural CO2 seeps, through changes in vegetation and temperature anomalies


Fjord region off Aalesund (Norway) - marine ecosystem experiments

(courtesy of NIVA & RITE)

RITE Benthic

Chamber system

(modified)


In situ Benthic Chamber Experiment to assess the effects of CO2 on deep-sea benthic fauna (NIVA and RITE, Japan with Network input for analyses)

Fjord region off Aalesund (Norway) - marine ecosystem experiments


Internal communication workshops

> Scientific coherence needed (oral or written)• Clear reasoning, having the whole picture in mind• Keep your own contribution in the right place in the general

context, and point out the interconnection of your own work with the work of others

• Avoid controversy raised (in Europe) following Kharaka’s et al. paper (2006) on Frio experiment.

> Requires subtantial sharing in the scientific community (workshops, joint work)• Express and discuss outcomes• Decide what to communicate

> An environment of trust must be created. When fear is present, the decisions will be influenced by factors that cannot be controlled


CO2GeoNet International Cooperation

> Objectives• CO2Geonet is encouraged by the European Commission to

collaborate with non network partners within and beyond Europe, in conducting joint research, in sharing hardware, staff expertise, access to samples and field sites, and dissemination activities

> Present Status• Close collaboration is now achieved with RITE (Japan),

PTRC (Canada) and the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

• Vattenfall signed a formal agreement with CO2GeoNet on CO2 impact on ecosystems

> CO2Geonet is looking very favourably to research cooperations with international Institutes or programmes


3. Discussion around the Japanese position paper


Effectiveness versus Global / Local RisksDistinguish:> Storage containment performance – global GHG emission reduction

• Risks function of the quantity of CO2 released to the atmosphere (leakage rates)

• Much attention given to storage performance (carbon credits…)> Storage safety – local HSE impacts

• Risks function of the concentration of CO2 in various compartments• Two little attention given to storage safety

> Local safety will condition CCS social acceptance!> Transforming a global risk (global warming) intolocal risks will not be accepted> Zero leakage tolerance for CO2 storage sites!


Norms are essential to regulate CO2 storageoperations

> To guarantee local safety for each site > To establish transparency and confidence> Useful for both:

• National authorities and control organisms: to assess projects and impose safety criteria

• Storage operators: to select sites, assess safety and design the storage operations

> Progress underway through experience from industrial andnatural analogues and first CO2 storage projects

> Difficult to establish due to site-specificity, complexity ofprocesses involved, partial geological characterization

> Norms need to be as simple as possible (to enable quick decisions), generic, with flexibility for adaptation to eachsite


Methodology for safety analysis of a storage site (BRGM, 2006)

> Construction of scenarios of subsurface evolution> Analysis of local targets to be protected> Management of uncertainties - distinguish:

• Variability (due to heterogeneities and variability of natural processes)• Imprecision (due to partial knowledge of processes and parameters) • Hybrid approach needed (Guyonnet et al., 2003)

> Role of impurities co-injected with CO2

Site conceptual

model


Safety criteria (BRGM, 2006)

> Appropriate characterisation of the storage site (initially and during the project)• Geology, hydrogeology, faults, geomechanics, caprock, …

> Operational parameters to be setted and controlled by the operator• Injection pressure, flowrate, volume, gas composition• Monitoring system at depth and at surface

> Elements to be monitored• Progression of the CO2 bubble, well integrity, groundwater

quality, etc.> Remediation actions

• May include reversibility for ultimate remediation> An initial pilot test phase with limited injection

rate may be required• Would enable iteration and confidence building


4. Conclusions


Conclusions

> The EU is strongly involved in confidence-building in theCCS technology

> CO2GeoNet, the EU Network of Excellence on CO2geological storage is engaged in a « Knowledge CreatingCycle », optimizing process of building confidence• Integrated and multidisciplinary community of researchers• Shares a variety of information, experience and practice through

dynamic interactions• Knowledge spiral model initiated: externalisation, combination,

internalization, socialization• External collaboration and dialogue with stakeholders

> The EU wants to favour international collaboration

> Thanks to the Japanese for organising such a timely andrelevant international workshop on building confidence!

European Efforts towards CCS and Confidence Building 012007/Presentations_WS_on_CB/05_BR… · >...

Documents

Transcript of European Efforts towards CCS and Confidence Building 012007/Presentations_WS_on_CB/05_BR… · >...