assessing ccs technologies towards large-scale deployments · complemented with a risk analysis...
TRANSCRIPT
Assessing CCS technologies towards large-scale deployments
Dealing with Uncertainty in the O&G sector – a case study approach
Pedro José Côrte-Real Ramalho Rolim
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Mechanical Engineering
Supervisor: Prof. Manuel Frederico Tojal de Valsassina Heitor
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Prof. Mário Manuel Gonçalves da Costa
Supervisor: Prof. Manuel Frederico Tojal de Valsassina Heitor
Member of the Committee: Eng. Joaquim Neto Filipe
November 2015
ii
i
Acknowledgments
To Professor Manuel Valsassina Heitor, who led me throughout this thesis, I wish to express my
sincere thanks for introducing and encouraging me in such diverse areas of interest and in different
perspectives.
I want to manifest my gratitude to all the personnel in ProjectoDetalhe for being always so kind
and receptive to my ideas and doubts. Here, a special regard to Eng. Joaquim Neto Filipe and Eng.
Jorge Silva for the patience and availability even when setbacks arose.
Merit and recognition must go as well to all interviewed specialists, who gave me their valuable
insights adding value to this work.
My sincere thanks to all my colleagues for all the help and guidance during the past months at
IN+.
Yielding and providing important inside knowledge and partnership, I want to leave here a word
of appreciation to CIUDEN, headed by Eng. Lionel Loubeau.
I wish also to thank all my family and close friends to whom I will be eternally grateful for
accompanying me throughout the past years.
Lastly and most importantly, I would like to thank my parents, siblings and girlfriend for their never
ending support, tolerance and dedication.
ii
iii
Abstract
This dissertation assesses and discusses the potential of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
large-scale deployments, under a context of increasing uncertainty. This eco-friendly solution is
investigated through the analysis of 4 case studies evaluating carbon dioxide transportation and storage
technologies. For transportation, pipelines and ships are comparatively assessed through an extensive
analysis covering costs, design approaches, construction and operation procedures. In addition,
reservoirs and injection processes are studied regarding carbon storage technologies, taking into
account monitoring and verification requirements.
The methodology used throughout this work relies on a case study basis, examined through an
extensive literature review and foresights of specialists from different areas. This methodology is
complemented with a risk analysis based on the IRGC risk governance framework, where drivers,
stakeholders and recommendations are pointed towards a sustainable growth in an era of constant
Energy Transitions and unknowns.
This thesis focus on the complex interaction between the O&G sector prosperity and the
development of CCS. Four possible emergent scenarios are build, having as variables the
competitiveness between energy sources and the geopolitical stabilization. Evidence gained from the
case studies is integrated and framed in those scenarios, where the potential of CCS is discussed in
each one, showing the challenging competition between technologies and environments and
acknowledging that no scenario will be determinant by itself, but rather all of them will compete and
coexist with one other in different contexts. The analysis demonstrates the importance of flexibility in
engineering design to tackle the challenge of growing uncertainty in global markets.
Keywords:
CCS; Carbon Mitigation; Oil&Gas; Technology Development; Uncertainty; Risk Governance.
iv
v
Resumo
Esta dissertação avalia e discute o potencial de implementação em larga-escala da Captura e
Armazenamento de Carbono (CCS). Num contexto de incerteza energética, esta solução é investigada
recorrendo a 4 casos de estudo avaliando tecnologias existentes de transporte e armazenamento de
dióxido de carbono. Para o transporte, pipelines e navios são comparados através de uma análise
intensiva cobrindo custos e procedimentos em termos de design, construção e operação. No
armazenamento, reservatórios e processos de injeção são estudados tendo em conta todas as
posteriores exigências de monitorização e verificação.
A metodologia usada ao longo deste trabalho baseia-se em casos de estudo, examinados através de
uma extensiva revisão de literatura e opiniões de especialistas de diferentes áreas. Esta metodologia
é complementada com uma análise de riscos baseada no modelo de governança de risco desenvolvido
pelo IRGC. Assim, drivers, investidores e recomendações são apontadas tentando alcançar um
crescimento sustentável numa era caracterizada por constantes transições no sector da energia.
Esta tese foca-se na complexa interação entre a prosperidade do sector do O&G e o desenvolvimento
do CCS nas últimas décadas. Quatro emergentes cenários são construídos, tendo como variáveis a
concorrência entre fontes de energia e a sustentabilidade geopolítica. O potencial do CCS é discutido
em cada um deles, mostrando não só a desafiante competição entre tecnologias e ambientes de
desenvolvimento mas também que provavelmente todos os cenários coexistirão em diferentes
contextos. A análise demonstra ainda a importância da flexibilidade no design de engenharia
desafiando a crescente incerteza inerente aos mercados globais.
Palavras-Chave:
CCS; Mitigação de Carbono; Oil&Gas; Desenvolvimento de Tecnologia; Incerteza; Governança de
Risco.
vi
vii
Contents
1. Introduction and Research Methodology ....................................................................... 1
1.1. Context and Motivation ................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1. Towards an International Observatory of Global Policies for the Sustainable Exploration of South Atlantic ............................................................................................................ 3
1.2. Technological Overview of Carbon Capture and Storage ........................................... 4
1.2.1. Project’s Lifecycle .................................................................................................... 4
1.2.2. Stages Overview ...................................................................................................... 6
1.3. Learning from Market Exploration in the Oil & Gas Industry ....................................... 8
1.4. Technological Systems and Trajectories ................................................................... 11
1.4.1. Observing Pre-Salt challenges .............................................................................. 12
1.4.2. CCS in Thermal Power Stations – Potential Technological Trajectories .............. 13
1.5. Research Problem ..................................................................................................... 14
1.6. Research Methodology .............................................................................................. 14
1.6.1. Case Study Analysis Definition .............................................................................. 14
1.6.2. International Risk Governance Council Framework .............................................. 15
1.6.3. Flexibility in Engineering Design ............................................................................ 19
1.7. Thesis’s Outline ......................................................................................................... 20
2. Assessing Carbon Dioxide Transportation Technologies .......................................... 21
2.1. CO2 Transportation Network ..................................................................................... 21
2.2. Pipelines Transportation ............................................................................................ 22
2.2.1. Case Study 1 – Technology Development Plant es.CO2 ...................................... 22
2.2.2. Design Approach ................................................................................................... 25
2.2.3. Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................. 29
2.2.4. End-of-life .............................................................................................................. 30
2.2.5. Challenges ............................................................................................................. 31
2.3. Ships Transportation ................................................................................................. 33
2.3.1. Case Study 2 – LCO2 Carrier Ship ........................................................................ 33
2.3.2. Design Approach ................................................................................................... 34
2.3.3. Operation Conditions ............................................................................................. 36
2.3.4. Challenges ............................................................................................................. 37
2.4. Comparative Analysis ................................................................................................ 38
2.5. Risk Analysis ............................................................................................................. 41
2.5.1. Drivers and Stakeholders ...................................................................................... 41
2.5.2. Risks Identification ................................................................................................. 42
2.5.3. Managing Risks and Recommendations ............................................................... 42
3. Assessing Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies ...................................................... 44
3.1. Case Study Description ............................................................................................. 44
3.1.1. Case Study 3: Weyburn-Midale Enhanced Oil Recovery Project ......................... 44
3.1.2. Case Study 4: Statoil Carbon Storage Projects .................................................... 47
viii
3.2. Reservoirs .................................................................................................................. 50
3.3. Injection Well ............................................................................................................. 55
3.4. Measurement, Monitoring and Verification ................................................................ 57
3.5. Risk Analysis ............................................................................................................. 59
3.5.1. Drivers and Stakeholders ...................................................................................... 59
3.5.2. Risks Identification ................................................................................................. 60
3.5.3. Managing Risks and Recommendations ............................................................... 61
4. Discussion and Summary ............................................................................................... 62
4.1. Summary ................................................................................................................... 62
4.2. Technological Challenges Overview ......................................................................... 65
4.3. Risks in the CCS Industry .......................................................................................... 66
4.3.1. Benefits, Drivers and Stakeholders ....................................................................... 66
4.3.2. Risks Identification ................................................................................................. 67
4.3.3. Managing Risks and Recommendations ............................................................... 68
4.4. Achievements Timeline ............................................................................................. 69
4.5. Scenario Building for the CCS Industry ..................................................................... 71
4.5.1. Energy Transitions: Risks and Challenges ............................................................ 75
4.6. Opportunities for Portugal .......................................................................................... 77
4.7. Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................. 79
4.8. Limitations and Further Work .................................................................................... 80
References ................................................................................................................................. 81
Annex A: Clusters for an effective Risk Assessment and Managing ........................................... a
Annex B: Pipeline Design Flow Diagram ......................................................................................c
Annex C: Carbon Dioxide Phase Diagram ................................................................................... d
Annex D: List of interviewed specialists ....................................................................................... e
Annex E: Interviews Transcript ..................................................................................................... f
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 – Lifecycle’s stages for a CCS project implementation .......................................................... 4
Figure 1.2 – Correlation between the evolution of barrel oil price and investment in CCS. .................... 8
Figure 1.3 – The three segments of Oil&Gas Industry Value Chain. ...................................................... 9
Figure 1.4 – Technological trajectories: FPSO, platforms and subsea technology. ............................. 12
Figure 1.5 – Risk handling phases and their linkages, following an international governance framework. ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.1 – Aerial view of the es.CO2 Technology Development Centre (Cubillos del Sil, Spain). .... 23
Figure 2.2 – CO2 pipeline incidents by cause and location from 1986 to 2008. ................................... 32
Figure 2.3 – Configuration of a ship-based CCS chain. ........................................................................ 34
Figure 2.4 – General characteristics of the LCO2 carrier. ..................................................................... 35
Figure 2.5 – General arrangement plan and particulars of the LCO2 carrier. ....................................... 36
Figure 2.6 – Possible schedule configuration and tasks distribution for a CCS ship transportation of 200 km (top) and 600 km (bottom). .............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 2.7 – Incidents by type from 2005 to 2014. ................................................................................ 37
Figure 2.8 – Different networks composed by different spines: pipeline onshore, pipeline offshore and ship. ....................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.1 – Oil production over the time and future predictions for the Weyburn and Midale fields. .. 45
Figure 3.2 – Statoil’s CCS projects timeline evolution. ......................................................................... 47
Figure 3.3 – Schematic representation of Sleipner CCS project........................................................... 48
Figure 3.4 - Steps to follow to choose a suitable storage location. ....................................................... 50
Figure 3.5 – Effects of Direct Ocean CO2 Injection on Deep-Sea Meiofauna. On the left, the progressive vector diagram illustrating flow, from the left to the right. A black circle notes the start of each day. On the right, the pH perturbations during the CO2 depletion. ..................................................................... 53
Figure 3.6 – Trapping contributions from different mechanisms and security increase over the time for CO2 injection. ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 3.7 – Typical CO2 injection well and wellhead configuration. ..................................................... 55
Figure 3.8 – Possible leakage pathways in an abandoned well: a) and b) between casing and cement wall and plug, respectively; c) through cement plugs; d) through casing; e) through cement wall; f) between cement wall and rock. ............................................................................................................. 56
Figure 3.9 – Injection rates of different projects compared with the CO2 emissions of a 500MW coal power plant. ........................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.10 – Different monitoring techniques and their application range. .......................................... 59
Figure 4.1 – Evolution of the number of CCS projects, investment and carbon managed. .................. 62
Figure 4.2 – Public perception of CCS contribution to mitigate the climate change. ............................ 63
Figure 4.3 – Leakage risk profile associated with the injection of carbon dioxide. ............................... 68
Figure 4.4 – Qualitative evolution of the CCS industry, split into three phases: Research, Demonstration and Commercialization. ......................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4.5 – Future plausible scenarios for the O&G industry. ............................................................. 71
Figure 4.6 – CCS importance in emergent scenarios of the Oil&Gas industry. .................................... 74
Figure 4.7 – Location and description of potential storage areas and clusters for Portugal. Also showing the economically viable pipeline routes from and between the main CO2 source regions. .................. 78
x
List of Tables
Table 1.1 – Distribution of CCS projects worldwide, grouped by continents and countries. ................... 2
Table 1.2 – Capture processes: advantages/disadvantages and its actual diffusion in the power industry. ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Table 1.3 – Differences between existing and new CO2 pipelines. ......................................................... 7
Table 2.1 – Main characteristics of the experimental transportation unit of Cubillos del Sil, Spain. ..... 24
Table 2.2 – Design factor dependence on locations and scenarios. .................................................... 26
Table 2.3 – Location Classes description. ............................................................................................. 26
Table 2.4 – Possible materials candidates for pipeline design depending on the stream composition. 28
Table 2.5 – Identified threats differences between general and carbon dioxide pipelines. .................. 32
Table 2.6 – Table of costs for the three networks, split into investment and operational expenditures. ............................................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 2.7 – Overall comparison of the pros of both pipelines and ships. ............................................. 41
Table 2.8 – Drivers and Stakeholders involved in the transportation process of a CCS project. ......... 41
Table 2.9 - Systemic risks for the pipeline and ship transportation process. ........................................ 42
Table 3.1 – Examples of Features, Events and Processes (FEPs) for Weyburn-Midale CO2-EOR project. ............................................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 3.2 – Comparison of Sleipner and Snøhvit cases. ...................................................................... 49
Table 3.3 – Drivers and Stakeholders involved in the storage process of a CCS project. ................... 59
Table 3.4 – Systemic risks for the onshore, offshore and ocean storage process. .............................. 60
Table 4.1 – Highest maturity level observed for each CCS component and specific technology. ........ 65
Table 4.2 – Drivers and Stakeholders involved in the storage process of a CCS project. ................... 67
Table 4.3 – Systemic risks associated with CCS technological system. .............................................. 67
Table 4.4 – Strategies plans to change global scenarios, following the paths identified in the figure 4.6. ............................................................................................................................................................... 75
xi
Abbreviations
BOP Blowout Preventer MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
CAPEX Capital Expenditure MMV Measurement, Monitoring and Verification
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
CIUDEN Formación Ciudad de la Energía NSR Northern Sea Route
CFB Circulating Fluidised Bed
CPU Compression and Purification Unit
OIPG International Observatory of Global
Policies for the Sustainable Exploration of
Atlantic
DNV Det Norske Veritas OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries
EC European Commission OPEX Operational Expenditure
ECBM Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery OTPPC Offshore Thermal Power Plant with
Carbon Capture and Storage
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
EGR Enhanced Gas Recovery R&D Research and Development
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery R&D&I Research, Development and
Investigation
FEED Front-End Engineering Design ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
FEPS Features, Events and Processes SBP Spar Buoy Platform
FPSO Floating, Production, Storage and
Offloading
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition Systems
FSRU Floating Storage and Regasification Units STP Standard Temperature and Pressure
GBS Gravity Based Structures TCM Technology Centre Mongstad
IMP Integrity Management Process TLP Tension Leg Platform
IMS Integrity Management System TPDs Technology Development Plants
IRGC International Risk Governance Council UK United Kingdom
LC Location Class USA United States of America
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
xii
1
1. Introduction and Research Methodology
1.1. Context and Motivation
Today's energy sector is involved in major changes mainly due to the appearance and
development of new technologies. Many of the long-held tenets of the energy sector are being rewritten.
Major importers are becoming exporters, while countries long-defined as major energy exporters are
also becoming leading centers of global demand growth. Awareness of the dynamics underpinning
energy markets is essential for decision makers attempting to reconcile economic, energy and
environmental objectives. The right combination of policies and technologies is proving that links
between economic growth, energy demand and energy-related CO2 emissions can be weakened [1].
This structural change in the dynamics of the energy market, towards a low-emission scenario, is
the result of one of the major problems that world is facing at the moment: Global Warming. Driven by
the security of supply and climate change concerns, decarbonisation of energy supply has become a
priority for many countries. As global energy demand continues to grow together with dependence on
fossil fuels, the need to decarbonise as well as diversify energy supply is becoming ever more pressing
[2].
Currently existing fleet of fossil fuel combustion power plants generate significant amounts of
carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere (more than 12 billion tonnes of CO2 per year [3]), which
are believed to be the main cause of climate change [4]. If this trend continues, it will put emissions on
a trajectory corresponding to an average global temperature increase of around 6 °C in the long term
[5]. Nevertheless, they produce even when it’s not windy or sunny and contribute to a diversified energy
sources, so fossil fuel power stations must be complementary to intermittent renewables and inflexible
nuclear energy [6].
In a near future, however, these carbon dioxide emissions will be more controlled and even taxed.
Solutions are beginning to be implemented to maintain the sustainability of the fossil fuels consumption,
reaching the emission reduction goal of the European Commission (EC), which forces the sector to
reduce its emissions by 96-99% by 2050 [7]. EC foresees that the electricity mix will be therefore
dominated by three generator types: 1) renewable sources with a share of 59-83% of generated
electricity, 2) Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) with a share of 7-32%, and 3) nuclear energy with a
share of 3-19% [8].
CCS places fossil fuels in a new lighting halt and make it possible to imagine and discuss about
a future with a maintained use of fossil fuels, while at the same time caring about the climate [1].
Basically, it is a technological system that captures the carbon dioxide after it is produced and stores it
in geological traps. The uncertainty threatened to inhibit investment in renewable energy in the grounds
that the prospect of large volumes of cheap gas might appear to provide a cheaper route to a lower
carbon economy [9]. Renewable energy presents some technical issues still remaining to be solved,
e.g. variable production, storage, efficiency, grid management, costs, among others. In this context a
rapid move away from fossil fuels is unlikely. The long life spans of energy supply infrastructures, energy
2
security production and costs are just some reasons to be named, so such a rapid move could
destabilize world economies [10].
A successful innovation process within the field of Carbon Capture and Storage - which is the
process towards a future where CCS technology not only is possible, but is in use as an important part
of everyday industrial processes – is dependent on scientific achievement, industrial involvement, and
public funding [11]. In these days, this technological system is far away from general acceptance and
implementation. One may identify the real dissemination all over the world, examining table 1.1 where
several projects are distributed by countries. The definitions of different states that characterize the
project will be clarified afterwards.
Table 1.1 – Distribution of CCS projects worldwide, grouped by continents and countries.
Continent Country Projects Total Actives Completed Hold Terminated Potential
Africa Algeria 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Australia Australia 17 17 7 0 3 6 1
North America
Canada 14
67
7 2 2 2 1
US 51 23 2 6 18 2
Mexico 2 1 0 0 0 1
South America Brazil 2 2 2 0 0 0 0
Asia
China 8
15
3 0 1 0 4
Saudi Arabia 1 0 0 0 0 1
UAE 2 0 0 1 0 1
Malaysia 1 0 0 1 0 0
South Korea 2 2 0 0 0 0
Taiwan 1 1 0 0 0 0
Europe
UK 6
43
0 0 3 1 2
France 3 3 0 0 0 0
Germany 4 0 1 1 2 0
Italy 4 2 0 1 1 0
Netherlands 6 4 1 0 1 0
Norway 6 4 0 1 1 0
Scotland 5 1 0 1 3 0
Czech Republic 2 0 0 0 0 2
Denmark 1 0 0 1 0 0
Poland 2 1 0 0 1 0
Spain 2 1 0 0 1 0
Iceland 1 1 0 0 0 0
Romania 1 0 0 0 0 1
From the table is notorious that the major developers of CCS projects are located in the North
America, particularly the United States. In Europe, the focus is mainly in countries situated more to the
North. South America and Africa have no relevance in the global panorama, being represented only by
2 and 1 projects, respectively. This sharp difference is once more explained by the investment and
industrialization contrasts between developed and developing countries.
3
These numbers should not deceive or hide the reality. Each country has millions of carbon dioxide
sources, emitting several tonnes of it every single day. As so, 145 projects worldwide, of which less than
half in an active state, represent almost nothing in the mitigation of problems related with global warming.
Reasons of this poor adhesion should be investigated, since they can vary from the large initial
investments to public unacceptance or lack of knowledge. After this investigation and identification,
recommendations and policy measures should be drawn and put into action. The motivation for this
thesis is therefore to explore the potential and future of the use of CCS technology, specially addressing
the transport and storage stages (as the capture is more related with the chemical field). Individual
emphasis will be given to European, South American and African countries in a way to overcome the
foreseeable challenges and allow the sustainable exploration of the ocean, particularly the South
Atlantic.
1.1.1. Towards an International Observatory of Global Policies for the Sustainable
Exploration of South Atlantic
The increase supply of hydrocarbons in the North Atlantic (USA, Canada and potentially Mexico)
and in South Atlantic (Brazil, West Africa and potentially Venezuela) diminishes the economic risks of
disruptions in the Middle East oil supply for the Atlantic nations. In addition, the expansion of the Panama
Canal in times of increased uncertainty in the energy markets and potential production of unconventional
gas worldwide, may foster new systemic risks to emerge in the Atlantic, particularly in South Atlantic.
This will probably occur together with traffic and major commercial sea routes, which will be significantly
enhanced with the emergence of new industries in several parts of the Atlantic coast, including East and
West Africa and Northern Brazil [12].
There may be no other industry today that demands a more diverse set of human, political,
mechanical and technological capabilities than the oil and gas industry. Competition for natural
resources has driven companies to explore and produce in harsh, remote and even hostile locations,
where even the simplest of logistical tasks can be difficult and costly [13]. Discovered resources under
the pre-salt layer unveil the possibility that Brazil multiply its reserves and doubles the production until
the end of the present decade. These transformations will not automatically occur: they will rely on the
capacity of the Brazilian economy. The country in general and the companies in particular must face
several economic, technological and ecological challenges in order to make it all worthwhile [14].
The ultimate goal of this initiative is, therefore, to promote a consortium in the form of an
International Observatory, “OIPG – South Atlantic”, to stimulate participatory risk governance activities,
to support the design of public policies and the sustainable development of the industry. It is particularly
aimed to help improving the understanding of new innovation dynamics and technology-based services.
It is intended to stimulate qualified employment and investment in knowledge and R&D in Atlantic
regions, promoting their endogenous growth and facilitating new opportunities for industrial development
based on new technologies for global markets. Pilot case studies should be performed mainly on four
technology platforms: Observation Systems: Ocean Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS); Ocean
Subsea Technologies; Ocean Surface Technologies and Port Technologies and Systems [12].
4
This thesis should be incorporated in this project and will be focused in the last platform identified:
Port Technologies and Systems, through strategies designed to minimize health, safety and
environmental risks.
1.2. Technological Overview of Carbon Capture and Storage
As already introduced in the subsection 1.1, Carbon Capture and Storage is seen as a potential
abatement measure to help slow or invert climate changes which could be the answer for the transition
between today’s and more environmental friendly technologies [4].
In summary, the aim of CCS is to capture the CO2 produced and transport it to a place where it
can be stored for a very long period avoiding releases for the environment [10]. All the process, thus,
can be split into three main phases: the capture of carbon dioxide, its transportation and its storage. All
of them involve a wide range of challenges, technologies and regulations. Following the EU CCS
Directive, commercial CO2 capture, transport and storage activities are highly likely to be obligated to
be subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to acquire those permits [15], [16].
1.2.1. Project’s Lifecycle
Before explaining the main challenges of each phase (capture, transport and storage), let one
start by describing the lifecycle of a CCS project, stage-by-stage. An integrated project is involved in
each element of the CCS chain – capture, transport and storage, which means that the lifecycle
described in the figure 1.1 may be applied in each phase.
A project is considered to be in ‘development planning’ when it is in the Identify, Evaluate, or
Define stage. A project is considered to have entered the active part when a positive final investment
decision has been taken (usually at the conclusion of the Define stage). When construction and related
commissioning activities are completed (Execute step), the project is in operation (Operate stage).
Finally, the project moves to the process of ceasing operations (Closure stage) and its consequences
[17].
Figure 1.1 – Lifecycle’s stages for a CCS project implementation
Identify
Evaluate
Define
Execute
Operation
Closure
Post-closure
Investment
Decision
Decommissioned
Planning
Active
Closing
5
At the Identify stage, early studies and preliminary comparisons between alternatives are carried
out. The main objective is to determine the business viability and potential opportunities to be explored.
For example, an oil and gas company believes it could take concentrated CO2 from one of its natural
gas processing facilities and inject and store it to increase oil production at one of its existing facilities.
To start the process, the company would conduct preliminary desktop analysis of both the surface and
subsurface requirements of the project to determine if the concept is viable and attractive. It is important
that during this stage, proponents consider all relevant aspects of the project (stakeholder management,
project delivery, regulatory approvals, and infrastructure, as well as physical CCS facilities). Before
progressing to Evaluate stage, all options that meet the overall concept should be clearly identified [17].
In the Evaluate stage, the range of options that could be employed is examined to build on the
broad project concept. For the oil and gas company, this would involve exploring: which of its facilities,
and possibly even facilities of other companies, might be best placed to provide the concentrated CO2
for the project pipeline routes that could be utilised from each of these sites, and even alternative
transport options such as shipping; which oil production field is suitable for injection based on its
proximity to the concentrated CO2 source, stage of oil production at the field, and other site factors.
For each option primarily identified, the costs, benefits, risks, and opportunities are identified.
During the Evaluate stage, project proponents must continue to consider all relevant aspects of the
project. At the end of this stage, the preferred option is selected and becomes the subject of the Define
stage. No other options are studied in the Define stage.
In the Define stage, the selected option is investigated in greater detail through feasibility and
preliminary front-end engineering design (FEED). For the oil and gas company, this would involve
determining specific technology to be used, design and overall project costs, required permits and
approvals, and key risks to the project. Other activities during the Define stage include conducting
focused stakeholder engagement processes, seeking out finance or funding opportunities, and
undertaking tender processes for engineering, procurement, and contracting suppliers.
At this lifecycle point, the project must be sufficiently defined for a final investment decision to be
made. In the aggregate, the Identify, Evaluate, and Define stages can take between four and seven
years.
In the Execute stage, the detailed engineering design is finalised. Construction and
commissioning of the plant occurs, and the organisation to operate the facility is established. Once this
is completed, the project then moves into the Operate stage - where the CCS project is operated within
regulatory requirements, and maintained and modified, as needed, to improve performance.
In the Closure stage, the CCS project is decommissioned to comply with regulatory requirements.
The site is rehabilitated for future defined use and resources are allocated to manage post-closure
responsibilities. In the Post-closure period, the project is considered ‘Closed’, with assets
decommissioned and a post-closure monitoring program implemented [17].
6
1.2.2. Stages Overview
Capture
Capture technologies separate carbon dioxide from gases and may be done, basically, by three
different methods: pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-fuel combustion systems [18]–[22]:
Pre-combustion refers to the carbon dioxide removal from the fuel before the combustion is
completed, involving its gasification and partial oxidisation. The gasification is a process where the fuel
is partially oxidized in steam and oxygen/air under high temperature and pressure to form synthesis gas.
This synthesis gas, or syngas, is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and smaller
amounts of other gaseous components, such as methane. The syngas can then undergo the water-gas
shift reaction to convert CO and water (H2O) to H2 and CO2, producing a H2 and CO2-rich gas mixture.
The CO2 can then be captured and the H2-rich fuel may be combusted in a modified gas turbine or fuel
cell producing power and water.
Post-combustion capture occurs in the downstream of the fuel combustion unit, where the
carbon dioxide is separated from flue gases. CO2 can be captured by a variety of techniques such as
absorption, membrane separation or cryogenic separation. Under the current state of technology, only
absorption and to some extent membranes are considered to be economically viable technologies. In
absorption techniques, carbon dioxide is absorbed from the flue gas in a separation tower using a
solvent [21], [22]. After the separation, it is regenerated by heating in a recovery column at temperatures
over 100˚C.
Oxy-fuel combustion is a variant of the post-combustion capture process. The oxygen required
is separated from air prior to combustion and the fuel is combusted in oxygen diluted with recycled flue-
gas rather than by air. This oxygen-rich and nitrogen-free atmosphere results in final flue-gases
consisting mainly of carbon dioxide and water, producing a more concentrated CO2 stream, enabling an
easier capture.
All techniques require a compression and dehydration of carbon dioxide before the transportation.
Gathering the three processes in the table 1.2:
Table 1.2 – Capture processes: advantages/disadvantages and its actual diffusion in the power industry.
Advantages Disadvantages State of the Art
Pre-
Multiple fuels can be used; Hydrogen produced can be reutilised; Increased efficiency gains from integration of the technology into power plants.
High construction costs; Reliability of all components for efficient integration; Decreased short-term flexibility
Evaluation
Post-
Can be applied to already constructed plants (retrofit); Little impacts on the existing power plant; Staged introduction which reduces disruption to the plant as well as investment risk.
Large energy penalty associated with thermal solvent regeneration; Large equipment requirements due to high volumes of flue gas; Corrosion of the equipment; Solvent degradation; Releases of harmful solvent/products.
Operation
Oxy-
Comparative ease with which CO2 can be separated (no solvent is required); Very high capture levels; Small physical size of the unit; Possibility of retrofit to an existing plant with some alterations.
Inflexibility due to the use of multiple burners; Large energy penalty of the air separation unit; High combustion temperatures; SOx emissions require an extra purification stage for the CO2;
Operation at sub-atmospheric pressure to prevent leakage.
Definition
7
Transport
In most cases it is unlikely that sources of CO2 will be near to anywhere that could be suitable for
storage of CO2. This means the CO2 will require transportation to the storage sites by pipeline, road
tanker or ship. [23], [24].
Transporting carbon dioxide is the most technically mature step in Carbon Capture and Storage,
being already a known technology with significant experience. Technologies involved in pipeline
transportation are the same as those used extensively for transporting natural gas, oil and many other
fluids around the world. In some cases it may be possible to re-use existing pipelines. In the United
States there are by now more than 6000 km of CO2 pipes. There is also experience, albeit limited, with
transport of CO2 using offshore pipelines in the Snøhvit project in Norway. Each CCS project would
choose the most appropriate method for transporting carbon dioxide and be subject to planning and
health and safety regulation [22], [23].
There are, however, some differences between the carbon dioxide captured transportation and
commercial transportation, carrying new challenges and special design considerations. In terms of
pipelines, which is the transportation mode most used for large and continuous emissions (as a power
plant is example of), one may identify the following differences in the table 1.3 [25]:
Table 1.3 – Differences between existing and new CO2 pipelines. (Adapted from: [25])
Existing CO2 Pipelines New CO2 Pipelines
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) CCS
Nearly Pure CO2 from dome fields Impurities, depending on the capture method
Remote, unpopulated areas Populated areas
Static Demand Fluctuation Demand (due to load factors)
Storage
Once the carbon dioxide (CO2) has been transported, it has to be stored. Two main ways exist to
do that: geological storage and ocean storage.
The first one refers to subsurface geological formations, where CO2 can be stored in pore space
of sedimentary rocks. Those formations, that are typically located several kilometres under the earth’s
surface, have large pressures and temperatures such that carbon dioxide will be in the liquid or
‘supercritical phase’ [26], [27].
Further than geological formations, ocean direct storage appears as a potential alternative. Ocean
storage and its ecological impacts are still in the research phase. Clearly, an ocean carbon sequestration
program will be successful only if its intended benefits outweigh its liabilities [28].
During and even after the injection, it is indispensable to monitor the storage site, demonstrating
the effectiveness of the storage project and to check for any possible leakage. Migration of CO2 from
the storage reservoir could possibly occur through poorly sealed and improperly abandoned wellbores
or transmissive faults and fractures in the cap rock. An escape of carbon dioxide from storage could be
detected through losses in the reservoir, migration in the rock above the reservoir and elevated
CO2 concentrations in the surface environment [26]. There is a range of monitoring techniques that can
be deployed to monitor the migration of CO2 in the reservoir and detect a possible leakage.
Currently, the state of the art of injecting carbon dioxide deep underground for storage is relevant.
There is already considerable experience at a number of industrial-scale CCS projects. These storage
8
sites have been carefully selected and the evidence from monitoring suggests that the carbon
dioxide has been completely and safely locked into the geological formations. Carbon dioxide has been
stored for over 30 years in Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects and storage projects are on-going, with, for
example, the Sleipner project operating since 1996. Other projects include BP’s In Salah project in
Algeria and the Weyburn-Midale project in Canada [29].
Usage
Carbon dioxide utilization is attractive because it can offset a part of the cost of CCS. CO2 can be
used either directly as a working fluid or as a feedstock of chemical synthesis processes. The latter
usage can be a challenge because this molecule is thermodynamically stable. Current examples for
CO2 utilization are urea, refrigeration systems, inert agent for food packaging, welding systems, fire
extinguishers, water treatment processes, horticulture, and many other smaller-scale applications [4]. It
can also be used for the production of organic chemicals, polymers and fuels. However, the scale of
possible utilization is small compared to manmade emissions, and the utilization is usually in a short
term. Therefore, the industrial utilization of carbon dioxide is not expected to mitigate man-made
emissions significantly [27].
1.3. Learning from Market Exploration in the Oil & Gas Industry
It is of extreme importance to understand the O&G industry’s value chain, because it ends up
very similar with the CCS industry requirements. Further than similar, they are interconnected: the
investment in CCS technology strongly depends of the O&G sector prosperity and knowledge, as will
be witnessed throughout this thesis. One may try to establish a relation between the investment in CCS
projects and the oil price, both divided by the major value of the visible range (dimensionless). As the
oil prices increase, more money the companies spend in R&D, including these projects. The effects are
felt after a slightly time delay as shown in the figure 1.2:
Figure 1.2 – Correlation between the evolution of barrel oil price and yearly investment in CCS.
(Data from: www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart and http://www.netl.doe.gov)
The value chain analysis, as popularized by Porter [30], investigates the sequence of consecutive
activities which are required to bring a product or service from conception and procurement, through the
different phases of production and distribution, to the final customer.
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
Investment Evolution Oil Price Evolution
9
The oil and gas industry encompasses a range of different activities and processes which jointly
contribute to the transformation of underlying petroleum resources into useable end-products valued by
industrial and private customers. These different activities are inherently linked with each other
(conceptually, contractually and/or physically), and these linkages might occur within or across individual
firms, and within or across national boundaries [31]. As the figure 1.3 suggests, the Oil&Gas value chain
can be broken into three main segments: upstream, midstream and downstream.
Figure 1.3 – The three segments of Oil&Gas Industry Value Chain.
(Source: http://files.gereports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/infra_products_image_lg.jpg)
As observed, CCS value chain is inverted compared with the O&G: it begins in the capture,
located in the downstream, and goes to the upstream, where is located the storage reservoir.
The upstream can be divided into two phases: the first phase consists only in the search and
prospection of oil, gas or ores reserves in different terrains. The extraction of the raw materials, that has
the major technological challenges, constitutes the second phase. Here is where the subsea exploration
and all related technology can be found.
The midstream can be defined as the segment of transport of raw materials. It is an extreme
challenging process, as a result of the locations of the extraction stations, and in which several
technological innovations can come up, as for example in the pipe construction industry but also in the
naval.
The final segment, the downstream, is where oil processing and refining is done, being afterwards
a final product and presented to the client. In the following subsection it will be better addressed the
upstream and the midstream segments, which are the basis for the analysis of the subsequent chapters.
10
Upstream Oil&Gas Value Chain Description
The Upstream value chain, of the offshore Oil&Gas exploration, can be particularly interesting to
mitigate the knowledge gap that exists in carbon dioxide storage. It is divided into smaller segments:
Reservoir Information – consists on the exploration of subsoil through reservoir imaging
systems and geological/geophysical equipments. Seismic analysis and the mapping of the wells is
made. This step is mostly conducted by geologists, who examine the terrain and rocky areas. Small
changes in Earth’s gravitational field and significant changes in magnetic fields can be indicators of the
presence of reservoirs. The most widely used technique offshore consists in evaluating seismic
reactions through compressed air guns or explosives. Through the reflection of shock waves with the
help of high sensitivity microphones and vibration detectors, the thickness of the various layers of the
soil are identified, thus building detailed maps of the subsoil [32][33].
Drilling and Casing Wells – here the site is prepared, physically and legally. Multiple holes are
drilled to be possible to prepare the main hole, in which is introduced the so-called conductor pipe (that
will connect to the rest of the production equipment). Offshore fields need support from specific modules:
Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU). They launch the riser, which is the element that allows the
connection between the outside and the bottom of the sea. It is through this element that all fluids move
and also the drilling strings, used to drill to the desired reservoir. On the surface there is the Blowout
Preventer (BOP), which allows to control the entire system in case of imminent increase of abnormal
pressure that could lead to an uncontrolled explosion. Sorts of caps are used to seal the well and is
used mud or seawater to provide the pressure to insure the stability of the structure. Upon reaching the
predetermined depth, the well is coated with cement, to prevent it from collapsing. Then the well is ready
for the extraction phase [32], [33].
Infrastructure, Production and Maintenance – after having the infrastructure ready, extraction
of products is made through a suction process which is powered by an electrical system that feeds the
extraction pumps. In cases where oil is heavy it is necessary to create a second hole for the injection of
water or carbon dioxide, so as to increase the pressure in the reservoir. The latter process is called
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) [32], [33].
Deactivation – after an analysis of the reservoir sustainability, and then concluded the
impracticality of it, is conducted a process of plugging the reservoir. In addition to this is also made a
clean sweep of the area, treatment of various natural surroundings and removal of infrastructures. It is
required by law to keep a check and monitoring of the field in post abandonment of the well [32], [33].
Midstream Oil&Gas Value Chain Description
Oil&Gas Midstream value chain can improve the necessary knowledge to transport the carbon
dioxide efficiently and securely. Midstream activities include the transport, storage and processing. The
transport can be made by two main options: storage vessels or pipelines. The midstream has not a life-
cycle as complex as the upstream has. Even so, one may identify the followings:
Liquefaction – if the transportation is by a storage vessel, such as in ships used for offshore
explorations, the hydrocarbon must be liquefied to allow a larger quantity in the same vessel (by an
11
increase of the density, roughly 600 times [34]). In that way, the transportation is more economically
viable. Pipelines do not require this step, most of the times, but they are not used in offshore explorations
that are too far away from the shore.
Transport – refers to the transportation per se, from the exploration to the refinery, and from
there to the final consumer. It requires a lot of technological challenges, such as the construction,
maintenance and constant monitoring. In the case of pipelines, there is a need of pump stations along
the way. The cryogenic temperatures of the liquefied natural gas (-162ºC) make this stage very
problematic [34].
Regasification – after the transportation of natural gas, for example, it is necessary to reconvert
the LNG to the gas phase, which require a regasification terminal. They may be classified depending on
the facility set-up: onshore terminals, offshore gravity based structures (GBS) or offshore floating
storage and regasification units (FSRU) [35].
1.4. Technological Systems and Trajectories
According to [2] and [3], advances in a given technology rely on advances of other technologies
and allows possible future advances of many others. A technological system is a set of radical and
incremental cross-linked innovations. May be considered, therefore, as the final assembly of several
subsystems. As an example, Carbone Capture and Storage can be seen as the technological system
while the capture mode or the storage vessel (particularly its properties: material, size…) may be
labelled as the technology itself.
It is important to notice that not all technologies are complementary. Some of them are in direct
competition with each other. They can offer different solutions for the same problem, each with its own
advantages and disadvantages. As example, one may indicate the competition between the capture
systems used in Carbon Capture and Storage. They are different systems, each one of them with its
own pros and cons identified previously, designed for the same purpose: the capture of CO2.
Under certain conditions, the competition among technologies is supplanted by the competition
between technological systems. The choice of a dominant technology becomes a competition between
companies or even between national economies [38]. Technological trajectories, thus, are shaped by
the selection context: a range of social, institutional, economic and environmental situations [39]. These
factors may change the economic performance of new technologies, adding to them even more
uncertainty. According to [38], [40], [41], the search for the efficient set of technologies is a complex
process governed by firms. Full of failures and successes, technological learning is a key aspect of the
process. Firms move their innovation activities through technological trajectories, creating evolutionary
patterns that lead to a set of cumulative technological characteristics, eventually diffused in the
production of goods and services. A technological trajectory is standard way of solving problems within
the framework of a certain technological paradigm.
After the deployment of a dominant trajectory prevails, the uncertainty may decrease, as it outlines
a more predictable future. The search for economies of scale becomes a central aspect of the process
and the incremental innovations become increasingly relevant aspect of it [36]. Notably, once a
technology is adopted by a large group of firms, it becomes dominant despite the fact that larger
12
economic benefits can be expected from other technological trajectories [38]. This situation typifies what
the literature calls a technological lock-in, meaning that firms are reluctant to take risks associated with
the adoption of different, although theoretically more efficient, innovations.
1.4.1. Observing Pre-Salt challenges
A perfect demonstration of the before exposed is the Petrobras’ case, where the pre-salt
discoveries begins to constitute a technological divide. For that explorations, Petrobras evaluated the
possibility of using new offshore production systems. Despite the enormous economic potential of the
reserves located in this new oil frontier, the number of technological obstacles (such as logistics, geology
and environmental protection) to be overcome to enable hydrocarbon production is significant. One can
identify three main technological trajectories, expressed as well in the figure 1.4 [38]:
Continuity – to move forward into the floating production system technological trajectory
adopted in the Campos Basin, characterized by the use of wet completion system, flexible
risers and Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) or semisubmersibles
platforms;
Intermediary – to start the use of platforms operated with dry completion, such as Tension
Leg Platform (TLP) and Spar Buoy Platform (SBP) using rigid risers;
Disruptive or Subsea to beach – to perform radical innovations such as multiphase
pumping and laser drilling that would enable the elimination of platforms.
Figure 1.4 – Technological trajectories: FPSO, platforms and subsea technology.
(Source: http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com)
Associated to each of these technological trajectories are different potential risks and benefits.
The continuity path has the advantage of being already an established concept, quite used all over the
world. Even so, new trajectories are being deeply studied, from the technological barriers to the
bureaucratic. It is fundamental to try to understand where change can be suitable, at several points of
13
view – as the ultimate choice will not be solely determined by the pre-salt technological challenges, but
also by the Brazilian regulations and policies.
1.4.2. CCS in Thermal Power Stations – Potential Technological Trajectories
As already introduced, the scenario of taxed carbon emissions in the near future starts to agitate
the electricity sector, for example. The still high dependence of this sector from thermal power stations,
which burn fossil fuels producing too much carbon dioxide, easily suggests to the experts that a change
of paradigms is nearby.
One may say that the easy answer involves the dismantling of these units, ceasing CO2
emissions, and investing on the renewable energy. Throughout the last years several efforts have been
made in this way. Yet, a couple of obstacles inhibits a faster dissemination of renewables. The large
investments needed, the production intermittence and the interests of the industry already settled are
examples of those barriers.
From other point of view, the answer for that problem may be more focused on a less radical
innovation. If emissions cannot be much more controlled than now, the solution must involve the capture
and storage of those malicious chemicals present on the flue gases. Carbon Capture and Storage, as
previously identified, seems to be in the pole position to assume that role.
Learning from the Pre-Salt challenges pronounced on the previous subsection, one may think on
a disruptive concept as the Subsea to beach is. A portable offshore thermal power station, equipped
with CO2 injection facilities, fits on that category, revolutionizing all the electricity sector. The idea of
offshore station is not new, as it can be found on offshore wind power, for example. On the other hand,
the notion of portable is not original either. It is inspired on the FPSO’s used on the Oil&Gas exploration.
This disruptive technological system may be also baptised as “Subsea to beach”, since the electricity
comes to the shore under water. It may be labelled as OTPPC, as the acronym for Offshore Thermal
Power Plant with Carbon capture and storage. However, due to the crisis in the oil price, investment in
FPSO’s is slowing down, which may compromise the development of this solution.
This is a concrete example of the CCS application impact, showing that this technological system
may not only improve the ecological footprint but also reshape a whole sector, as is the case of the
electricity sector. Summarizing the last three paragraphs, each one describing a different potential
trajectory:
Continuity – to move forward into renewable energy, reinforcing the investment and
studying better ways to improve net results.
Intermediary – to continue fossil fuels consumption, but capturing carbon dioxide in order
to mitigate the climatic issues. This trajectory may include an investment on renewables
as well, but better balanced between the two types of energy.
Disruptive or Subsea to beach – to perform radical innovations in electricity generation
such as the portable power station, transmitting electrical power through subsea cables
over long distances.
14
1.5. Research Problem
As seen, Carbon Capture and Storage technological system is not being substantially explored
worldwide. This thesis aims to identify the viability and sustainability of CCS growth and deployment in
times of uncertainty and energy transitions.
Therefore, through a strong and consolidated methodology described in the next section,
technologies regarding transportation and storage of carbon dioxide are going to be assessed and
discussed. Gathering all the knowledge, one will evaluate the effect of the Oil&Gas sector in the Carbon
Capture and Storage industry and which might be the importance of CCS in emergent scenarios
identified for the O&G industry. One will elaborate also a risk analysis, based on the framework
established by the International Risk Governance Council, identifying drivers, risks and
recommendations to improve the engagement of stakeholders and CCS sustainability.
1.6. Research Methodology
A research, wherever the subject is included, that aims to produce credible and useful results or
conclusions must be supported by a strong and consistent methodology. Technological Systems is an
emerging field at the intersection of engineering, management, and the social sciences. Designing
complex technological systems requires not only traditional engineering systems, but also knowledge
of public policy issues and awareness of societal norms and preferences. In order to meet the challenges
of rapid technological change and of scaling systems in size, scope and complexity, Engineering
Systems promote the development of new approaches, frameworks and theories to analyse, design,
deploy and manage these systems [42].
In this section the methodology used to progress through the research problem is presented.
Following a case study analysis definition and its recognized validity, a brief overview of the concepts
used along this thesis is given. Lastly, the risk governance methodology and the necessary flexibility in
engineering design are described, which allows an identification of risks and benefits of each trajectory.
1.6.1. Case Study Analysis Definition
This methodology originates from human and social sciences as well as evaluative research [43].
It is the science of the singular; it aims to understand what is distinctive of a case defined as specific, a
complex functioning thing, whether it be a person, a clinic, a classroom, an institution, a program, a
policy, a process or a system [44]–[46]. A variety of data may be collected to help deepen understanding
of the case and in qualitative studies this commonly includes interview, observation and document
analysis. No particular method of data analysis is associated with case study methodology: the
researcher is able to choose from a broad range of methods and will be guided by the focus of the case
study and research question [47].
The whole process has several steps, including: definition of research questions, specification of
the population in case, selection of more than one data collection methods, combination of multiple
investigators’ different data, data overlapping and opportunistic collection, data analyse and its
comparison with conflicting literature and reaching closure [48]. This theory is applied to science when
there is enough data to overlap and to get to real conclusions. All the theory must then be evaluated,
15
parsimonious, testable and logically coherent [49]. All the process is pretty similar to the so known
“Reverse Engineering”.
This technique of creating new theories with case study basis has a great success on generating
novel theory by juxtaposition and by reconciliation of different types of data. Many say that this technique
is biased to corroborate with the investigator’s preconceptions, as the investigator will always try to
establish, even subconsciously, a linkage between his predictions or knowledge and the data collected.
Recent achievements defend that the only negative possibility comes from the staggering volume of rich
data that can lead the investigator to try to capture everything [48].
The case studies analysed in the next chapters aim to understand, through real and consolidated
examples, the applicability and viability of this technological system. They follow an extensive literature
review and interviews to understand the foresights of the experts in academia, scientific institutions and
industry. The term ”foresight” has been used to describe how to face long-term issues, essentially as
new policy tools to deal with problems in science, technology and/or innovation systems. While a few
tools and techniques have been developed, they represent an unprecedented diffusion of forecasting,
planning and participatory approaches to long-term issues [50].
Conclusions and recommendations taken from the case studies are presented in the end of each
chapter, supported by the extensive data from literature and interviews, following the framework of risk
governance, which consists on the selection of the major benefits, risks and principal recommendations
(benefits/risks analysis). In the last chapter a technology foresight is made, trying to understand if this
technological system will prevail in the near future and its limits of applicability, identifying the potential
opportunities for new projects and the potentially role that the Portuguese industry might develop.
1.6.2. International Risk Governance Council Framework
A risk governance, as defined by [51], is the identification, assessment, management and
communication of risk in a broad context. Many current risk issues are complex, uncertain, or even
ambiguous. In most cases, the potential benefits and risks interconnect. The aim of a better risk
governance analysis and framework is to help experts and academia to design policies, regulatory
frameworks and industrial strategies to enable societies to benefit from change while minimising the
negative consequences of associated risks.
The framework followed in this thesis is the one created by the International Risk Governance
Council (IRGC). This is an independent organisation whose purpose is to improve the understanding
and management of emerging systemic risks that may have significant impacts on human health and
safety, the environment, the economy and society at large. IRGC’s work includes developing concepts
of risk governance, anticipating major risk issues and developing and providing risk governance policy
recommendations for key decision makers.
IRGC’s mission is to facilitate a better understanding of risks and their scientific, political, social,
and economic contexts. It also provides support on how to manage them when there are knowledge
gaps, time constraints and policy trade-offs. IRGC believes that improvements in risk governance are
essential to taking optimal risk-related decisions and to maximising public trust in risk management
processes, structures and decisions. Concretely, the goal is to minimize:
16
Inequitable distribution of risks and benefits between countries, organisations and social
groups;
Differing approaches to assessing and managing the same risk;
Excessive focus on highly profile risks, neglecting higher probability but lower profile risks;
Inadequate consideration of risk trade-offs;
Failure to understand secondary effects and linkages between issues;
Cost of inefficient regulations;
Decisions that take inappropriate account of public perception;
Loss of public trust.
For that, the IRGC’s framework comprises five linked phases:
1. Pre-assessment;
2. Appraisal;
3. Characterisation and evaluation;
4. Management;
5. Communication.
These interlinked phases, described in the next pages, together provide a means to gain a
thorough understanding of a risk and to develop options for dealing with it.
Risk handling is not just about risk management: it starts at the much earlier stage of risk pre-
assessment. Here the essential aspects of the risk are identified in order to provide a structured
definition of the problem.
To clarify the various perspectives on a risk, to define the issue to be looked at and to form the
baseline for how a risk is assessed and managed is essential to establish a normalized categorization
of risks – whether they are originated from natural, technological, economic or environmental causes.
This categorization may be split into four main classes: simple, complex, uncertain or ambiguous. Other
complementary aspects are the risk’s degree of novelty, scope, range, time horizon, type of hazard and
delay.
It is important to assure a meaningful engagement with the stakeholders, particularly how they
see the risk and whether or not there are any applicable legal or other existing rules or processes. This
evaluation may be done throughout interviews or conferences, involving all the stakeholders.
Risk appraisal develops and synthesizes the knowledge base for the decision on whether or not
a risk should be taken and, if so, how the risk can possibly be reduced or contained. This stage is the
most significant for all the technology related risks, comprising both a scientific and a concern risk
assessment. The first one consist of a conventional assessment of the risk’s factual, physical and
measurable characteristics including the probability of it happening. On the other hand, a concern risk
assessment ensures that decision makers account for how the risk is viewed when values and emotions
come into play. It refers to a systematic analysis of the associations and perceived consequences
(benefits and risks) that stakeholders, individuals, groups or different cultures may associate with a
hazard or cause of hazard. Each brings to the open different types of questions:
17
Scientific risk assessment: what are the potential damages or adverse effects? What is
the probability of occurrence? How ubiquitous and persistent could the damage be? Can it be
reversed? How clearly can cause-effect relationships be established? What scientific, technical
and analytical approaches, knowledge and expertise should be used to better assess these
impacts? What are the primary and secondary benefits, opportunities and potential adverse
effects?
Concern risk assessment: what are the public’s concerns and perceptions? What is the
social response to the risk? Is there the possibility of political mobilization or potential conflict?
What role are existing institutions, governance structures and the media playing in defining public
concerns? Are risk managers likely to face controversial responses from differences in
stakeholder objectives and values, or from inequities in the distribution of benefits and risks?
A good risk characterization and evaluation is an essential tool to justify the decisions taken
throughout the management of risks. This stage ensures that the evidence based on scientific facts is
combined with a thorough understanding of societal values when making the judgment of a particular
risk as acceptable, tolerable or intolerable. Here is important to keep in mind that “no evidence of proof
is not evidence of no proof”.
All the acceptable and, more importantly, the tolerable risks will need appropriate and adequate
risk management. It involves the design and implementation of the actions and remedies required to
avoid, reduce, transfer or retain the risks. Decisions are taken and put into practice, based on the
development of a range of options and a consideration of the most appropriate of them. Risk
management includes not only the generation, assessment, evaluation and selection and
implementation of appropriate risk reduction options, but also monitoring their effectiveness and
reviewing the decision if necessary.
Throughout this phases, the communication between the involved parts is of the utmost
importance. It enables stakeholders and civil society in general to understand the risk itself, as well as
their particular role and responsibilities in the risk governance process. Once the risk management is
made, communication should explain the rationale for the decision and allow people to make informed
choices. If all this process is developed on a two-way philosophy, all the participants have a voice in it.
Effective communication is the key to create trust in risk management.
To survey the strength and validity of this framework, one may identify a series of risk
governance deficits that are grouped into two broad clusters [51]:
Cluster A: related to the assessment and understanding of risks, including the collection
and development of knowledge. They affect the decisions that will be made with regard
to risk management.
Cluster B: related to the management of risks, the acceptance of responsibility and the
taking of action in order to reduce, mitigate or avoid the risk.
These clusters may be found as decision maps (annex A) to facilitate the detection of possible
deficits on a particular project, and will be used along this thesis.
18
The approach here presented allows the emphasis on conveying systematic knowledge. It
assures transparent and clever decisions, supported by relevant experiential and practical knowledge.
The integration among several risk domains, different actor groups and of theory and practice, permits
an integrated and interdisciplinary approach to the sectors and themes ensuring quality on identifying
and managing the risks [52]. The framework stresses the broader social, institutional, political and
economic contexts that must be taken into account in risk-related decision-making. The figure 1.5 (next
page) shows the connections between all the mentioned categories in a lifecycle format, splitting the
phases into two main domains: the assessment and the management.
Figure 1.5 – Risk handling phases and their linkages, following an international governance framework.
(Source: [52])
Some Definitions
After the description of the framework followed in this work let one just clarify some of the
definitions and key-words used throughout the next chapters, according to [53]:
Risk is an uncertain (generally adverse) consequence of an event or activity with respect to
something that human’s value. Risks are often accompanied by opportunities.
Systemic risks are embedded in the larger context of societal, financial and economic
consequences and are at the intersection between natural events, economic, social and technological
developments and policy-driven actions. They arise from the interactions and interdependence of the
components forming an integrated whole [54]. Such risks are not confined to national borders; they
cannot be managed through the actions of a single sector; they require a robust governance approach
if they are to be adequately managed. The governance of systemic risks requires cohesion between
countries and the inclusion within the process of governments, industry, academia and civil society.
19
Complexity refers to difficulties in identifying and quantifying causal links between a multitude of
potential causal agents and specific observed effects. Complex Systems are by definition composed of
many parts that interact with and adapt to each other, offering highly complex risks.
Uncertainty refers to a lack of clarity or quality of the scientific or technical data. Highly uncertain
risks include many natural disasters, acts of terrorism and sabotage and the long-term effects of
introducing genetically modified species into the natural environment. Ambiguity results from divergent
or contested perspectives on the justification, severity or wider meanings associated with a given threat.
Governance refers to the actions, processes, traditions and institutions by which authority is
exercised and decisions are taken and implemented.
Risk Governance, as already explained, deals with the identification, assessment, management
and communication of risks in a broad context. It includes the totality of actors, rules, conventions,
processes and mechanisms and is concerned with how relevant risk information is collected, analysed
and communicated, and how management decisions are taken. It applies the principles of good
governance that include transparency, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability, strategic focus,
sustainability, equity and fairness, respect for the rule of law and the need for the chosen solution to be
politically and legally feasible as well as ethically and publicly acceptable.
Risk Governance Deficits is defined as deficiencies (where elements are lacking) or failures
(where actions are not taken or prove unsuccessful) in risk governance structures and processes.
Deficits hinder fair and efficient risk governance and increase the severity and cost of a risk event.
Risk Management refers to the process of accepting, avoiding, transferring or controlling the risk
to an acceptable level considering associated costs and benefits of any actions taken [54].
1.6.3. Flexibility in Engineering Design
As said long ago by Isaac Asimov, the only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable
change; that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer
without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.
In order to achieve the best results in an engineering project, such as a CCS project, there is
need to adapt to circumstances as they arise. It is necessary to have designs that can be easily modified
to take advantage of new opportunities or mitigate adversities. The future is uncertain: design that does
not account for a range of possibilities that may occur over a long lifetime runs the risk of leaving
significant value untapped or even incurring major losses. This uncertain future provides not only a
range of risks, but also a variety of opportunities.
Once the uncertainty is recognized, the design approach may be made with robustness or
flexibility. Robustness is the world in which traditional engineers feel at home, requiring a reasonable
overdesign of the system so that it functions well under all scenarios. However, this approach commits
all capital upfront and is thus very costly because only one of the futures will occur. In many
circumstances, it is smarter to build enough flexibility in the system to allow the system operator to adapt
it to changing circumstances.
Design flexibility has the power to exploit uncertainties in technological systems, increasing the
expected value of our projects significantly by designing them cleverly to deal with future eventualities.
The prediction of these eventualities is the main challenge. Humans have no omniscience to predict
20
precisely what may happen. They have to be satisfied with good estimates of the distribution of
possibilities, of the range of what may happen and the relative likelihoods of various scenarios.
According to [42], estimating the distribution of future possibilities is a five-step process:
1. Identify the important factors;
2. Analyse historical trends;
3. Identify trend-breakers;
4. Establish forecast (in)accuracy;
5. Build a dynamic model.
It is not obvious which flexibilities will add the most value to a project. The answer depends on
many interacting factors, such as the nature of the system, the kinds and intensities of uncertainties as
well as the cost of implementing that flexibility.
1.7. Thesis’s Outline
The methodology employed is founded on a case study basis research where, for both carbon
dioxide transport and storage, one will present two case studies of projects that added value to the CCS
general knowledge. Supported by an International Risk Governance Council Framework, through an
extensive bibliographic research and experts’ foresights, the engineering challenges, ranges of
applicability and operation, investments, public concerns and the managing of the risks are the centre
of each study. The foresights were collected through interviews to different experts from the industry
and academia (interviewees list available in the annex D and transcription in the annex E). Chapter 2
and 3 deal, respectively, with the transportation and storage of carbon dioxide.
In the last chapter, a summary and an overview of the technological challenges is performed.
Besides, all the knowledge gained from all the case studies is integrated and framed in the global
scenario of the Oil&Gas industry, taking into account the big unknowns and the growing uncertainty in
the global economy. There are also addressed opportunities for Portugal and the engineering role in the
prosperity of this technological system, towards an International Observatory of Global Policies (OIPG),
along with the inherent limitations and further work.
21
2. Assessing Carbon Dioxide Transportation Technologies
Carbon dioxide transportation is the middle step between capture and storage. It is of extreme
importance in a Carbon Capture and Storage project, since it connects the source and the reservoir,
affecting the viability of the whole project.
In this chapter one will start by clarifying the transportation network, facing afterwards the two
main transportation methods: pipeline and ship. Both are going to be analysed through a case study for
each one: Cubillos del Sil (Spain) for pipelines, and LCO2 carrier for ship transportation. A design
approach, construction, operation and maintenance procedures will be identified for each one, along
with a comparative cost analysis. The chapter ends with a risk analysis where challenges, risks and
stakeholders are assessed.
2.1. CO2 Transportation Network
Carbon dioxide is transported from the capture to the storage site through a complex
transportation network. This network is designed accordingly to specifications and exigencies of each
project. The main objective of the projector is to design this network to transport CO2 on an efficient and
reliable manner, taking into account the investment and operation/maintenance costs. Contributions to
the normal production, i.e. regularity and availability on the carbon dioxide transportation, will be different
from component to component of the system. The impact from each component (or set of components)
on a system will mainly depend on the level of redundancy, the function of the component in the system,
the failure frequency and the downtime (given a failure) [55].
Transport may be made through storage tanks (in ships, trucks or even rails) or pipelines. The
choice whether to use vessels or pipelines, or even both, strongly depends on the project’s conditions.
The whole network should be planned and constructed from the beginning at regional or national level
and oversized to meet transportation needs of multiple CO2 sources. This integrated perspective would
take advantage of economies of scale and enable the connection of additional CO2 sources with sinks
in the course of the pipeline lifetime. Opposite approaches, as the single source to single site is example,
are likely to impede large scale deployment of CCS as it will not permit the expansion and sharing of
built infrastructure with other sources, especially in more densely populated areas where there is need
to transport carbon dioxide from multiple anthropogenic sources. These sources, in turn, will be required
to develop their own pipelines, resulting in deployment delays due to permitting procedures, and
additional costs, since pipeline costs do not scale proportionally with transport capacities [56].
Thus, sources and reservoirs may be connected in two main different strategies:
Multiple sources to site: diverse sources feeding the same reservoir;
Multiple sources to multiple sites: one source provide carbon dioxide for two or more
reservoirs, while the same reservoir is fed by different sources.
The first strategy is adopted when a relatively large reservoir exists near the sources, being the
only one ready to receive carbon dioxide. It allows a reduction of investment costs, since there are quite
less necessity of equipments and infrastructures as they are shared by all the sources.
22
On the other hand, if the grid is composed by several sources and reservoirs, there is a major
flexibility in terms of transportation routes, future expansion to other sources and there are more
available reservoirs to inject CO2. This advantages may reduce some risks and increase the efficiency
of the whole project, which might counterbalance the larger investment in equipments, infrastructures
and even in human resources needed.
2.2. Pipelines Transportation
2.2.1. Case Study 1 – Technology Development Plant es.CO2
Even though in the past decades several pipelines transporting carbon dioxide were projected
and successfully operated, the engineering behind it is not yet perfectly known. In Cubillos del Sil (Leon,
Spain) there is a Technology Development Centre, called es.CO2, testing different areas related with
CO2 capture and transport. This facility, whose objective is to develop technologies to reach industrial
scale, belongs to CIUDEN and is part of phase 1 of the Compostilla project.
In July 2009, European Council and the European Parliament adopted the European
Commission’s proposal for the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR). The EEPR funds
projects in the fields of energy, including CO2 Capture and Storage. In December 2009, EEPR granted
financial assistance to 6 CCS demonstration projects, including the OXYCFB300 Compostilla Project in
Northwest Spain, initiative run by a public-private consortium. This Compostilla project was thought in 2
phases to reduce significantly economic and technical risks as well as to enhance experience and
technical support:
Phase 1: Technology Development – construction of three Technology Development
Plants (TPDs) at pilot scale, each one addressing a different CCS step (capture, transport
and storage). This phase also includes the survey and geological characterisation of a
safe and suitable geological CO2 storage at demo scale, the development of the Project
FEED including the capture plant, pipeline and the injection infrastructure, the permitting
process and the associated engineering studies required to guarantee the successful
delivery of Phase II.
Phase 2: Technology Demonstration – capture, transport and storage technologies
tested in the Phase 1 will be scaled up to a demo scale. The Project aims to construct a
300MWe Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB) oxycombustion Demo Plant at ENDESA’s
Compostilla. Captured CO2 will be injected into a deep saline geological formation.
The partners involved in this consurtium were, by order of importance: ENDESA Generacion;
CIUDEN and Foster Wheeler. ENDESA is the coordinator of the project and the owner of the
Compostilla power station in Cubillos del Sil (Leon, Northwest Spain), which is the planned site for the
300 MWe Capture Demonstration Plant. Fundacion Ciudad de la Energia (CIUDEN) conducts R&D
activities in the field of CCS through the construction and operation of three Technology Development
Plants. Finally, Foster Wheeler is the technological provider of the Circulating Fluidised Bed units in the
Capture TDP and Demo plant.
23
Phase 1, where CIUDEN was the responsible, was concluded successfully and is still in operation.
However, phase 2 was cancelled due to the lack of regulatory policies and because ENDESA, that was
the leader, renounced to do it.
One will focus the case study in the TDP of Cubillos del Sil described above, since it is the platform
where transportation via pipeline is being more deeply assessed. This es.CO2 Centre has a semi-
industrial size, including the systems shown in the figure 2.1:
Figure 2.1 – Aerial view of the es.CO2 Technology Development Centre (Cubillos del Sil, Spain).
In this case study one will concentrate on the unit 6, CO2 Transport Experimental Facility, which
tests the carbon dioxide behaviour in pipelines transportation. Experiments are performed in 6 different
experimental areas and the facility is held inside of a thermally isolated and temperature controlled
building, avoiding the influence of environmental temperature changes during experiments. The
installation can be divided in two systems: the feeding & preparation and the experimentation. The main
technical characteristics are described in the table 2.1 (next page).
Before operation, the coils and the buffer tank are filled with carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide
may be provided by two different sources: captured at the CPU or commercial pure CO2. The filling
process is performed by two pumps from either location. The quality and composition of CO2 depends
on the source and on the capture technology. Moreover, the facility is equipped with a doping system
that is able to simulate different compositions by adding trace elements.
The pressure to transport CO2 through the pipeline, to carry out any experiment, is achieved by a
membrane pump. Temperature is regulated using 3 heat exchangers by means of steam and chilled
water. Temperature and pressure are generally set to achieve dense phase CO2 conditions.
1 – Fuel Preparation
System
2 – Pulverized Coal Bed
3 – Circulating Fluidized
Bed Boiler
4 – Flue Gas Cleaning
System
5 – Compression and
Purification Unit (CPU)
6 – Transport Experimental
Facility
7 – Bubbling Bed Biomass
Gasifier
8 – CCS Laboratory
24
Table 2.1 – Main characteristics of the experimental transportation unit of Cubillos del Sil, Spain.
Feeding & Preparation System
CO2 temperature and pressure from CPU -34ºC; 14.5 bar
Commercial CO2 temperature and pressure -17.2ºC; 20 bar
Feeding pumps pressure and flow 80-110 bar; 1m3/h
Heat exchanger From 10ºC to desired temperature
Buffer tank 4.5 m3
Doping SOx; NOx; H2O; CO; H2S; H2; CH4; N2;
O2; Ar
Experimentation System
10 tube coils 8 carbon steel; 1 stainless steel; 1
duplex stainless steel
Coils length and diameter 300 m each and 2”
Circulation pump Membrane pump, 80-110 bar
3 heat exchangers 10-31ºC (capable to run experiments at two different temperatures at the same
time)
6 experimental areas Depressurisation; Leakage; Fracture; Corrosion; Instrumentation; Pressure
drop
The research lines being assessed in this transportation unit are:
Development of tools for scaling up;
Carbon dioxide transport behaviour under different conditions and impurities;
Material affection by CO2 streams;
Start-up and shut-down routines, and transient periods;
Instrumentation development and advanced process simulation.
At least for an initial and development state of Carbon Capture and Storage concepts, pipelines
are seen as the preferable solution for carbon dioxide transportation. While there is a current perception
that transporting CO2 via pipelines does not represent a significant barrier to implement large-scale
CCS, there is significantly less industry experience than for hydrocarbon (e.g. natural gas) service. Thus,
there is a number of issues that need to be adequately understood and the associated risks effectively
managed, despite the fact that there is no indication that problems for carbon dioxide pipelines are any
more challenging than those already set by hydrocarbon pipelines, or at least that they cannot be
resolved [57].
Pipelines transportation may be classified in two different categories: those that are constructed
and operated on land and the others that are positioned underwater. The first ones are known as
“Onshore Pipelines”, while the underwater are recognized as “Offshore Pipelines”. There is no properly
a choice between the two types, they might be seen as complementary instead of competitors. For
example, for an offshore reservoir both ways might be needed if the source is not located in the
shoreline.
Today, CO2 is mainly transported by pipelines for industrial purposes. The majority of those
pipelines are found in North America, where there is over 30 years of experience, mainly from natural
deposits and gas processing plants for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The only existing offshore pipeline
for transporting CO2 is the Snøhvit pipeline (Norway), which has been transporting CO2 obtained from
natural gas extraction through a 153 km seabed pipeline since May 2008 (Case Study 4).
25
An important feature to highlight is the possibility to requalify a pipeline that is or was normally
used for natural gas transportation, for example. This requalification allow important savings in the
investment costs, which might contribute to raise the interest on CCS projects, as it will be further
assessed in this chapter.
A pipeline project entails several phases, from the concept and design to the abandonment,
passing by construction and operation/maintenance. The next sections describe these stages, covering
also the pipeline requalification scenario.
2.2.2. Design Approach
In the very beginning of a pipeline design, concepts and numerous alternatives must be
developed and analysed, finding the best solutions accordingly to the premises and norms that have to
be followed. At this stage the agenda is outlined, anticipating necessities for the design and construction.
It is important at this point, as previously alerted, to foresee the potential sources near the one being
studied. Building a large network clustering different sources, which might allow important savings in
investment costs, should always be a priority.
Methodology
Established the main features of the project, engineers start to design the entirely pipeline,
connecting the source to the sink or, if it is the case, to the network already existing. Here, some critical
criteria must be delimited and followed all over the design process, including [55]:
System dynamics: dynamic interaction between system components;
Flow assurance modelling: modelling of hydrate potential, hydraulics, pressure
transients;
Validation of dispersion modelling methods: clarification of source terms, accurate
modelling, empirical modelling, definition of distances between pipelines and habitation;
Physical properties: validation of multi-component modelling techniques, empirical data
generation;
Mechanical design: fracture control prediction and techniques, material selection.
Accordingly to [58], there are influential inputs that influence the piping design: fluid properties;
environment; effects of pressure and temperature; design conditions; supply and demand
magnitude/locations; codes and standards; route, topography and access; environmental impact;
economics; hydrological impact; seismic and volcanic impacts; material; construction; commissioning;
operation; protection and integrity. The fluid’s pressure and temperature determine its phase, which is
of major interest to predict corrosion, pressure drops and flow rate. The terrain’s elevation or slope
affects strongly the pressure drops and the flow rate needed to transport the fluid from one point to
another. Furthermore, the terrain’s topography should be evaluated, such as its live and dead loads, the
tendency for earthquakes, waves and tidal currents (in the case of offshore pipelines), which defines if
the pipeline is going to be buried or not.
26
Regulation
There are some specifications, given in certain norms, which must be rigorously followed
accordingly to the issue being studied. CO2 pipelines shall be designed in accordance with industry
recognized standards and applicable regulatory requirements [59]. Land and marine pipelines are not
as different, in a regulation point of view, as may appear. Offshore pipelines design do not have to worry
about population density and esthetical issues. As so, they are based on similar premises, differing
mainly on the construction and operation procedures.
In the methodology phase there is a step of fundamental importance: the choice of the design
factor. It will be systematically taken into account all over the designing process, and should be reviewed
every time that appears a significant modification in the project. Before the choice of the safety factor,
which is the ratio between the material strength and the expectable service load, there are norms that
establish how much of the material strength the item is required to withstand. For carbon dioxide,
accordingly to the ISO 13623, it comes in the table 2.2. for onshore and offshore pipelines:
Table 2.2 – Design factor dependence on locations and scenarios. (Adapted from: [59])
Scenarios Onshore Offshore
General route 0.77 (LC > 1); 0.83 (LC = 1)
0.77 (LC > 1); 0.83 (LC = 1)
Crossings
- Minor roads 0.77
- Major roads, canals, rivers, lakes 0.67
- Shipping lanes, anchoring areas, harbour entrances
0.77
- Landfalls 0.77
Pig traps and multi-pipe slug catchers 0.67 0.67
Special constructions 0.67
Risers and primary piping 0.67
Where LC stands for Location Class, which in the view of the same norm means:
Table 2.3 – Location Classes description. (Source: [59])
LC Description
1 Locations subject to infrequent human activity with no permanent human habitation. Is intended to reflect inaccessible areas such as deserts and tundra regions
2 Locations with a population density of less than 50 persons per square kilometre. Is intended to reflect such areas as wasteland, grazing land, farmland and other sparsely populated areas
3
Locations with a population density of 50 persons or more but less than 250 per square kilometre, with multiple dwelling units, with hotels or office buildings where no more than 50 persons may gather regularly and with occasional industrial buildings. Is intended to reflect areas where the population density is intermediate between LC2 and LC4, such as fringe areas around cities and towns
4 Locations with a population density of 250 persons or more per square kilometre, except where a LC5 prevails. Is intended to reflect areas such as suburban housing developments, residential areas, industrial areas and other populated areas
5 Locations with areas where multi-storey buildings (four or more floors above ground level) are prevalent and where traffic is heavy or dense and where there may be numerous other utilities underground
27
Simulation Models
In the methodology phase the mathematical and physical models that are going to be used must
be selected. There are two major criteria that have to be adopted in the study of the pipeline integrity:
the one to control the fracture propagation and the equation of state of the stream. They are changing
and being improved systematically, but not even all the experts trust in the same models.
For the fracture arrest conditions, ductile fracture does not propagate if the pipeline is designed
according to the following:
3.33
𝜎𝑑
𝜎𝑓
>2
𝜋cos−1 (exp (−
𝜋 𝐸𝑁
24))
(3.1)
𝜎𝑑 =𝑃𝑑𝐷
2𝑡
(3.2)
𝐸𝑁 =(𝐸 𝐶𝑣)
12
𝐴𝜎𝑓2 (
𝐷𝑡
2)
(3.3)
Where:
A Area beneath Charpy notch [m2] Cv Charpy notch material toughness [J] D Outside pipe diameter [m] E Young’s modulus [Pa] EN Normalised toughness parameter Pd Decompressed pressure, [Pa] t Pipe wall thickness [m] σd Decompressed pipe hoop stress [Pa] σf Pipe steel flow stress [Pa]
The stream’s equation of state selection is a bit more complicated. Significant discussion on the
subject has taken place in articles and conferences, however no consensus has been reached. There
are three most known and used to describe the state of matter under a given set of physical conditions,
even though giving different results that influence pipeline design.
Design
Once everything is planned and outlined, the project moves to the design stage. Knowing the
location of the source and the sink, the best route to follow, if it is going to be an onshore and/or offshore
project, if the pipeline is going to cross populated areas, if it is mandatory that the pipeline be buried and
so on, it is time to think what materials, infrastructures and components must be used.
The primarily objective is to transport carbon dioxide, from a point A to a point B, as safe and
reliable as possible. However, the engineer should incorporate some external aspects when analysing
the results. Incorporate that pipelines in a global network and the accessibility for the trucks that
transport the pipeline to construction site are examples of that. Overall costs should always be taken
into account, but not always the cheapest solution is the preferable.
Nowadays no one projects a pipeline without the fully support of a specialized software. There
are many software available in the market, all of them having similar characteristics. These
28
computational programs operate on a tri-dimensional referential, which facilitates the design.
Additionally, they are equipped with simulation analysis, which allows the study of the behaviour of a
certain material, flow, dimensions and so on. Through this approach, several variables are iterated and
the optimal one is found, for the premises and objectives established.
As already introduced, the composition of the carbon dioxide stream depends on the capture
system and on the source itself. The most efficient way to transport it is in the dense phase, above the
critical point (73bars, 31ºC). Generally, CO2 is transported at temperature and pressure ranges between
13ºC and 43ºC and 85 and 150 bars, respectively. The upper temperature limit is determined by the
compressor-station discharge temperature and the temperature limits of the external pipeline coating
material, whereas the lower temperature limit is set by winter ground temperature [60].
When stream properties are fully set, the pipeline material may be selected. This selection should
be compatible with all states of the CO2 stream, covering also the potential low temperature conditions
that might be caused by a depressurization situation, being resistant to the corrosion as much as
possible. Based on the ISO 15156, pipeline material should be carefully chosen from the shortlist shown
in the table 2.4. It depends mainly of the presence of free water, which is basically water not dissolved
in the dense CO2 phase, i.e. a separate phase containing water that requires more resistant materials.
This can be pure water, water with dissolved salts, water wet salts, water glycol mixtures or other
mixtures containing water. Other important constituent is the hydrogen sulphide, H2S, which is
dangerously flammable, with a strong odour and extremely toxic.
Table 2.4 – Possible materials candidates for pipeline design depending on the stream composition.
(Adapted from: [59])
No free water With free water
Material Types Pure CO2 CO2 + H2S Pure CO2 CO2 + H2S
C- and low alloy steel
304
316
13Cr
22Cr (duplex)
25Cr (duplex)
Nickel based alloys
Components
Pipelines are not only constituted by the pipe shell itself. Along the pipeline’s course, they are
equipped with several components and infrastructures, each with its own function, used to assure a safe
and reliable transport, keeping the fluid and the pipeline’s integrity within operational conditions. One
may identify the main components: valves; compressors; booster pumps; PIG launchers and receivers;
batching stations and instrumentation; metering stations; Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) systems.
As the pipeline is being designed, the engineer add these components and infrastructures as they
are needed. Here, the software assumes a huge role, as the user may easily add or remove components
or even modify the pipeline layout, accordingly to the simulations results, finding iteratively the best
configuration possible.
29
The final step that concludes the piping design is the elaboration of the so called Piping and
Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID). It plays a significant role in the maintenance and modification of the
process that it describes. It is critical to demonstrate the physical sequence of equipment and systems,
as well as how these systems connect. Accordingly to the Institute of Instrumentation and Control, P&IDs
are diagrams that show the interconnection of process equipments and the instrumentation used to
control the process. They are a pictorial representation of key piping and instrument details, control and
shutdown schemes, safety and regulatory requirements and of basic start up and operational
information.
Summarizing all the design approach one may draw a flowchart that illustrates the sequence and
interconnection between the several steps described before (see annex B).
2.2.3. Operation and Maintenance
Pre-Commissioning
Before the green light to start normal operation, it is mandatory to perform some tests to verify
the pipeline reliability. Visual inspections should always be realized during pipe construction and
assembly. Alongside, some structural tests may be performed, as the acoustical test or x-ray are
examples of. The principal test comes when the pipeline is already installed, or at least a section of it. It
is called the “hydrostatic test”, used to confirm the integrity in terms of strength and leakages. Basically,
and in accordance with the norm ISO 13623 for onshore and with the norm DNV-OS-F101 for offshore
pipelines, the pipeline section is filled with water, which may be dyed to aid in visual leak detection, until
the specified test pressure is reached (usually 1.5 times the calculation pressure). Strength is usually
tested by measuring permanent deformation of the container, while a possible leak may be visually
identified.
After the conclusion of the hydrostatic test, special attention should be given to dewatering of the
pipeline system prior to filling it with carbon dioxide. The high solubility of water in dense phase CO2
may be beneficial as to ease the requirement to drying compared with streams of carbon dioxide in a
gaseous state. It should, however, be noted that in the initial stage of the first-fill, CO2 will always be in
gaseous phase. Due to the particular corrosion issues, pipeline should be dried to a dew point of -40 ºC
to -45ºC (at ambient pressure) before being ready to normal operation [59].
In many cases there is a considerable time delay between pre-commissioning and operation,
which might reach several weeks or even months. In these cases is important to conserve pipeline
integrity through preservation techniques, such as the filling with N2 or dry air.
Commissioning
This is an intermediate step before the start of normal operation. Here, the operator must assure
that the pipeline is filled with a fluid quality in accordance with requirements at the receiving end
(reservoir).
Before the initial filling, pipeline is as defined by the pre-commissioning, which means that special
attention might be needed in the case of a preservation substance was used. As the carbon dioxide
enters the pipeline it will mix with the substance already there. Experience shows that dense phase CO2
and N2 do not always mix well and therefore a PIG between the two media may be required [59]. This
30
PIG, further than cleaning the pipe, should be used to perform a baseline inspection, determining the
condition and integrity of the pipeline. This inspection shall be used as reference for later inspections.
Integrity Management System
Management of a safe and reliable pipeline operation is greatly facilitated through the use of the
Integrity Management System (IMS). IMS outlines the capacity of an asset to perform its required
function effectively and efficiently whilst protecting health, safety and the environment. It is a tool to
ensure that, over the whole lifecycle of the project, integrity of the people, systems, processes, and
resources are in place. IMS is comprised of many elements and the terminology of them may differ in
different codes and standards. In addition, the operator must be aware about differences between
onshore and offshore pipelines that may exist in each element.
As idealized, and accordingly to the code DNV OS F-101 and DNV-RP-F116, the Integrity
Management Process (IMP) is considered the core of the IMS. It incorporates numerous elements and
activities that shall include, but not be limited to, risk assessment activities, integrity assessment
activities (as regular inspections) and response activities (interventions and monitoring, for example).
Complementing this process some additional considerations must be addressed, as the organisation
and personnel, contingency plans, audits, reviews and so on.
2.2.4. End-of-life
Re-qualification
A re-qualification of an abandoned pipeline system, once used for natural gas for example, is an
alternative way of implementing CCS. It contributes to a reduction of investment costs as much as the
network is prepared to directly face a change for carbon dioxide.
Re-qualified pipelines shall comply with the same requirements as the ones specifically designed
for carbon dioxide transportation. Any deviation identified shall be considered, evaluated from a
technical and costly point of view, and concluded whether it is acceptable or not. When analysing data
from concept, design, construction and operation of the existing pipeline, the deviations identified might
compromise and discourage the re-qualification.
One may outline all re-qualification steps based on [59]. First, a decision is taken to evaluate an
existing pipeline system – initiation. Secondly, there is need to address the technical integrity and
conditions of the pipeline system, through an integrity assessment. If everything goes well, the hydraulic
analysis comes next, where a flow assessment is performed to identify feasibility with reference to
transportation capacity and corresponding pressure and temperature distribution along the route. The
system as it is designed should be evaluated according to the specific safety requirement for CO2
pipelines, through a safety evaluation. Gathering the results from the hydraulic analysis and the safety
evaluation, the premises of the project are totally established. It follows the reassessment phase, where
a prognostic is made about the integrity and, if it is not acceptable, modifications needed are identified.
If these modifications are not costly or technically feasible, the re-qualification process is interrupted.
Otherwise, the modifications are studied, designed and all the re-qualified system is documented and
implemented.
31
Abandonment
Closing the pipeline system lifecycle appears the abandonment stage. The pipeline might become
no longer useful for many reasons: depletion of the hydrocarbon reservoir, technological issues, financial
difficulties, public acceptance or even because of an incident during operation. In some cases, they
might be deactivated or taken out of service for shorts periods of time before they are abandoned [61].
In the case of carbon dioxide pipelines used for carbon capture and storage, there are two more reasons
that might be added: the deactivation of the source of CO2 or when the reservoir becomes completely
full.
Abandoning a pipeline network requires the accomplishment of several procedures:
1) The operator must develop an abandonment plan, with input from all the stakeholders: the
landowner, environmental or other technical experts and any others;
2) The operator makes a formal appliance to the Board/Government for permission to abandon
the pipeline;
3) Once the application is complete, a public hearing is held to decide whether the
abandonment would be in the public interest and whether the procedures proposed would
provide for adequate safety and protection of the environment.
The abandonment plan shall, thus, address key issues related to public and environmental
protection. These might include: pipeline and its equipment cleanliness and end of life; ground settling;
possible soil and groundwater contamination; water crossings; soil erosion; etc. Sometimes there is the
scenario where the simply abandonment is environmentally better than the dismantling of all the system.
Moreover, the cost of dismantling a pipeline might be quite significant and should be considered by the
stakeholders, in order to make responsible decisions.
2.2.5. Challenges
Reviewing all the previously exposed about pipelines transportation, there are several challenges
and obstacles to overcome. They must be explored to deploy Carbon Capture and Storage to a world
scale, on an efficient and sustainable way. The major challenge might be considered the maintenance
of a hazard-free industry. The concepts validation and public acceptance strongly depends on that. If
there is not an incident of major consequences as CCS is being implemented, more projects might
deserve a chance by the involved stakeholders. Accordingly to the experience already collected, the
main differences may be identified in the table 2.5 (next page), in terms of threats, between the normal
pipelines and the CO2 ones:
32
Table 2.5 – Identified threats differences between general and carbon dioxide pipelines. Adapted from: [59]
Threat General pipelines CO2 pipelines
Tim
e
De
pe
nde
nt
External corrosion
Internal corrosion Depends
Stress corrosion cracking
Fatigue
Materials’ degradation
Manufacturing, welding and equipment defects
Tim
e
Ind
epe
nd
en
t
Manufacturing and welding defects
Incorrect operations
Weather/Outside force
Equipment failure
Stability
Repair/Welding issues
Shut-in
Blow down/depressurization
Investigating data records, shown in the figure 2.2, framing from 1986 to 2008, there were
registered the following incidents by category:
Figure 2.2 – CO2 pipeline incidents by cause and location from 1986 to 2008. (Data Source: CONCAWE)
There were registered, in average, 2 incidents per year or 0.36 per year per 1000 km, none of
them presenting serious consequences. Comparing to the 0.22 incidents per year per 1000 km shown
by the natural gas transmission network, one may conclude that it is already a good indicator, which
tends to diminish as experience and know-how increase. For hazardous liquids, this rate assumes the
value of 0.82, which expresses that carbon dioxide appears to have more in common with the natural
gas than with any hazardous substance.
Others challenges, if overtaken, might boost significantly the CCS deployment [58] such as:
The transfer of the US and Canadian experience into a global market;
The application of the technology offshore and the consequences of reduced access;
The transport of carbon dioxide from anthropogenic sources containing impurities and
hence the need to describe the behaviour of the carbon dioxide stream through
appropriate equations of state;
The higher population density found in other global locations including Europe and the
associated health and safety implications of on-land pipeline routing.
0
5
10
15
20
Number of Incidents Location of Failure
33
2.3. Ships Transportation
2.3.1. Case Study 2 – LCO2 Carrier Ship
Offshore geological reservoirs to store captured carbon dioxide demand a transportation that
crosses the ocean from the shore to the site itself. As studied in the previous subchapter, pipeline
transportation seems to assume a major role in CO2 transportation for Carbon Capture and Storage
applications. However, for long distances and deep waters the piping solution becomes extremely
difficult and expensive to implement. Thus arises the carbon dioxide transportation by ship.
Only a few CCS reports were made covering this transportation alternative. Nevertheless,
commercial maritime transport of CO2 has been going on for many years, and many projects try to point
out that shipping may be a good alternative to pipeline transport under certain conditions. In the first
instance, use of ships provide flexibility in operation both with regard to the type and number of sources
as well as storage sites. Furthermore, ships also offer benefits due to short delivery time and potential
for reuse in other projects or even in non-CO2 transport. As result, they are well suited for demo CCS
projects [62]. Here, one decided to focus on the LCO2 carrier, projected by CHIYODA corporation and
the Global CCS Institute, reported on [63], and projected to operate in the Northern Sea Route (NSR).
Regarding carbon dioxide properties needed, it may be transported in two different options: in a
compressed or in a liquefied state, properly described in the next two paragraphs.
Compressed CO2 in ships may be directly compared to transportation in pipelines. For that
reason, transport conditions and consequential design premises are quite similar: the temperature will
be around 25ºC and the pressure above 75 bar, reducing the risk of two phase flow. Still, the inspection
procedures are much more aided in ships, comparing with underwater pipelines. However, this concept
remains unproven and without international regulations.
Liquefied CO2 has virtually the same properties as water: it is a colourless low viscosity fluid, with
density around 1.1 g/cm3, depending on temperature conditions. For commercial use (as food and
beverages, cleaning, chemical…), carbon dioxide is nowadays transported in the liquefied state, with
pressures between 15 and 18 bar and temperatures from -22ºC to -28ºC [62]. For CCS purpose, CO2
should be transported near the triple point, increasing the fluid density and the economic efficiency.
Transportation in marine environments might be needed, for some projects, just to complement
land transportation made through pipelines. Barges may also be used instead of ships for small
distances, as in the case of rivers and canals. A large number of them are in operation today, but not
for carbon dioxide transportation. This type of transport presents advantages in terms of investment and
operation costs, but are considered unsuited for offshore unloading operations.
In this section, according to the trends and applicability of the previous exposed, it will be
assessed the transportation of liquefied CO2 by ships, focused particularly from the liquefaction to the
unloading step. The injection will be further addressed in the chapter 3.
34
2.3.2. Design Approach
Transportation by ship involves several infrastructures, each one with its own components and
regulations. A possible ship-based CCS chain is drawn in the figure 2.3. To complete the “marine cycle”
it is needed a liquefaction system, a ship carrier and an injection unit. This chain in particular was
idealized to have as much mobility as possible: liquefaction and injection units are easily transported to
serve a similar project in a different location.
Figure 2.3 – Configuration of a ship-based CCS chain. (Source: [64])
The ship docks near the barge to fill its tanks with the captured carbon dioxide. When the process
is finished, the ship has to do the voyage between the shore and the injection site and back. The cycle
of ship transportation is therefore discrete, whilst the carbon dioxide is continuously captured at the plant
on land. As result, this marine transportation chain shall include a tank after the liquefaction system,
used as a buffer for temporary storage.
Regarding barges and ships there is already a lot of information about regulations, design
specifications and operation procedures. Moreover, existing ships or barges may be adopted and
adapted to fulfil the necessities of a CCS project. Analysing in detail those infrastructures from the very
beginning of its construction ends up being redundant and falls outside of the scope of this thesis.
Tanks
Carbon dioxide tanks are designed based on the same premises as existing liquefied gas tanks.
Design methodology for LPG cargo tanks is well understood and is regulated by international standards
(specifically the "International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied
Gases in Bulk”; IGC code) and Classification Societies (such as DNV, BV and LRS). There are three
types of tank structure for liquid gas transport [57]:
Pressure – designed to prevent the cargo gas from boiling under ambient air conditions;
Low-temperature – designed to operate at a sufficiently low temperature to keep cargo
as a liquid under atmospheric pressure;
Semi-refrigerated – designed taking into consideration combined conditions of
temperature and pressure necessary for cargo gas to be kept as a liquid.
35
As seen, at atmospheric pressure, carbon dioxide might be in gas or in solid phase, depending
on the temperature. For standard temperature and pressure (STP) conditions, 0ºC and 1 bar, it is in the
gas phase (as may be seen in the carbon dioxide diagram – annex C). Decreasing temperature, keeping
the atmospheric pressure, is not sufficient by itself to liquefy the CO2. Instead, that combination directly
turns CO2 into the solid phase, known as “dry ice”. Liquefied CO2 only exists at pressures well above
the atmospheric.
The low-temperature tank type is not compatible with those characteristics, as carbon dioxide
would always be on a dry ice state. Between the pressure type and the semi-refrigerated, the last one
is the most preferred by ship designers. It has both pressure and temperature as variables, which allows
a more rigorous control and flexibility under different atmospheric conditions. For the semi-refrigerated
tank, the minimum operational point is around (-54ºC; 6 bar) to (-50ºC; 7 bar), which is near the triple
point, where fluid density is higher.
In the LCO2 carrier case, for optimisation proposes, operational point is established to be around
(-10ºC; 2.65 bar or 2.65 MPa). It is important to refer that the pressure of the tank rises during operation,
due to the ship’s motion and solar incidence, at an expected rate of 0.033 MPa per day of cruise.
Considering the Northern Sea Route, the maximum time distance that may be acceptable is around 3
days cruise duration. Hence, maximum working pressure will be around 2.8 MPa.
The tank for this kind of ship, in order to maximize transported volume and respecting all the
norms and specifications is designed in the figure 2.4:
Figure 2.4 – General characteristics of the LCO2 carrier. (Source: [63])
Tanks 2 Volume 1500 m3 each Design Pressure 3.10 MPa Radius of one cylinder 3.5 m Length 26.96 m
The material should be resistant enough to deal with extreme conditions that the tank will face.
Generally, the material selected is a quenched and tempered carbon steel, specific for low temperature
use. At the conditions of -10ºC, and according to the steel sheet JIS SHY685, it offers a tensile strength
of 795 N/mm2 and a yield strength of 685 N/mm2.
36
Ships
Ship design and construction requires a large research, analysis and investment to leave the
design sheet and to become a reality. Characteristics specifications depend on the projects’
requirements, which vary from case to case. The ship is intended to have the particulars shown in the
figure 2.5:
Figure 2.5 – General arrangement plan and particulars of the LCO2 carrier. (Source: [63])
L 94.2m
L (pp) 89.6m
B (mould) 14.6m
D (mould) 6.9m
d (design) 5.6m
Side thruster 1150kW (2sets)
Azimuth Propeller 3000kW
Power Generator (Diesel) 3500kW (2sets)
Ship Service Speed 15.0 Knot
2.3.3. Operation Conditions
In carbon dioxide ship transportation there are many parts playing at the same time. In normal
operation conditions, it ends up being a repetitive cycle. It begins with the capture of carbon dioxide from
the flue gases, pursued by dehydration and compression for pipeline transport. Afterwards, the liquefied
unit turns the gas into liquid, storing it in the temporary tank. At this point starts the real ship
transportation cycle: as the ship docks, its tanks are filled and it is ready to go for the storage site. There,
carbon dioxide is injected to the geological reservoir and the ship comes back to shore, closing the
cycle.
The main part of operation begins in the loading and ends when the ship comes back to the port,
after injecting carbon dioxide in the offshore reservoir. Operation procedures are then essentially
constituted by 4 steps: loading, transport to the site, unloading and return to the port.
Loading refers to the procedure of filling the tanks with liquid carbon dioxide stored in buffers.
For that, there is necessity of pumps adapted for high pressures and low temperatures. As safety
procedure, cargo tanks are initially filled with gaseous CO2 to remove any residue of humid air and
prevent the possibility of dry-ice creation.
The transport operation to the site is not different from other transportations by ship. However,
there is one issue that shall be considered. As seen, tank pressure increases day-by-day due to the
heat transfer from the environment, which may boil the liquefied carbon dioxide. Gaseous CO2 may be
easily discharged together with exhaust gases of the ship’s engines. Doing so releases, of course, CO2
to the air, eliminating the zero emissions idea. This idea may be achieved through a capture and
refrigeration unit that captures the stream of boiled and exhausted gases, refrigerating and storing them
back in the tank.
37
When the ship reaches the injection unit, it has to unload liquid CO2 from the tanks. Liquid CO2
must be replaced with dry gaseous CO2 to prevent contamination of humid air, being afterwards recycled
and liquefied when the tank is refilled.
Finally, the cargo returns to the port to do the next voyage. When the CO2 tanker is in the dock
for repair or inspection, or even to transport a different fluid in the next operation, gaseous carbon dioxide
existent in the tank should be purged1 with dry-air.
Those operations are rigorously planned and scheduled to assure a maximum efficiency. For
shorter distances, typically under 200 km, there is only necessity of 2 ships doing this cycle in a
desynchronized way. For larger distances more ships are needed to avoid an excessive accumulation
of captured carbon dioxide on temporary tanks. If 3 ships are considered, tasks may be distributed as
demonstrated in the figure 2.6:
Ship Day i Day (i+1) Day (i+2)
#1 loading transport unloading injection back (Repeat)
#2 injection back loading transport unloading
Ship Day i Day (i+1) Day (i+2)
#1 transport unloading injection back loading
#2 back loading transport unloading injection
#3 injection back loading transport unloading
Figure 2.6 – Possible schedule configuration and tasks distribution for a CCS ship transportation of 200 km (top) and 600 km (bottom).
2.3.4. Challenges
Many factors hold shipping carbon dioxide transportation deployment. They must be seen as
challenges to identify, study and overcome. Experience of other marine related industries should be
gathered and understood, avoiding start from scratch and jumping up to high standard levels. These
knowledge may be acquired through statistical data: incidents occurred by ship type and also the type
of incidents occurred. Accordingly to the data provided by [65], one may draw the figure 2.7:
Figure 2.7 – Incidents by type from 2005 to 2014. (Data from: [65])
1 Purify the tank through the elimination of impurities that may contaminate and modify the CO2
properties.
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
Number of Incidents
Year
Foundered
Collision
Wrecked
Fire/Explosion
Machinery
Hull Damage
Miscellaneous
Contact
38
In terms of incidents, the biggest percentages have to do with human fails, like collisions, sunk or
stranded ships. Similarly, fires and explosions should be taken into account due to the danger of tanks’
explosion. Oil tankers, particularly, may provide useful information and data about hydrocarbon
transportation, which has, as seen, quite similar requirements to carbon dioxide transportation.
Container ships might also contribute to the development of CO2 vessels, as they are much regulated
in terms of containers displacement and weight distributions along the ship. They had only 1 and 4
accidents, respectively, which might be a good indicator about the expected safety standards that CCS
ships will have.
Other challenges, besides the necessary shipping skill pointed out, may be identified:
Logistic models to improve the overall efficiency and results;
Constant modelling and monitoring of sea conditions to anticipate adverse conditions that
may result in serious dangers;
Tools to optimize new-built ship dimensions and properties or/and requalify existing ones;
Studies to improve the energy efficiency spent on the liquefaction and unloading units;
Investment in solutions that provide a larger flexibility and a larger range of uses, as the
barges are example of;
Constant parameters correction to optimize the whole process, as the buffer storage
capacity or CO2 purity requirements.
2.4. Comparative Analysis
The choice between transportation modes, when both are feasible, should be based on the results
and conclusions of an exhaustive comparative analysis. This analysis should address several
parameters, including costs, environmental consequences, existent regulatory framework, public
acceptance and so on. Stakeholders, particularly those that are going to invest money in the project, will
firstly look into the costs category. If the values differ significantly from ship to pipelines, for instance, it
is almost an impossible mission to convince them to prefer the most expensive solution in detriment of
the cheapest one. A comparative analysis should, therefore, begin with a costs comparison among the
several possible scenarios for each project.
Currently, there is a lack of data in this field for Carbon Capture and Storage projects, due to its
embryonic deployment. Besides, very few studies and reports were made to date focusing specifically
on the cost of CO2 transport in the context of CCS. Furthermore, even if ship transport is an obvious
complement or alternative to pipelines, few studies include this possibility. The most recent and
generally accepted study contemplating both transportation modes, foreseeing the post-demonstration
scenario, was made by [66] and is going to be reproduced in this subsequent section, followed by a
general pros and cons examination.
Costs
This study entails the three different transportation possibilities analysed before: onshore
pipelines, offshore pipelines and ship tanks. It will be not applied to a certain project or region but to a
general case. In that sense, different spine distances between the source and the sink are studied,
particularly: 180, 500, 750 and 1500 km. This was chosen to very roughly approximate non-trivial
39
transport costs seen for onshore locations of 100 km or more (e.g. Compostilla, Spain; Porto Tolle, Italy;
east coast locations of the UK; and some onshore in Germany), though it is not specific to any one
location. For offshore locations, 180 km is an arbitrary distance but a starting point to analyse costs to
reach Dutch and UK southern North Sea locations and UK, Norwegian and Danish central North Sea
locations, although there is a considerable variation. The maximum distance, 1500 km, covers longer-
term access to the northern North Sea offshore storage locations via network solutions to CO2 transport
from continental Europe or the Baltic Sea states.
These distances are the “spine” of the transportation network, completed by feeders and
distribution parts, which are the connection by pipelines of the source to the spine and the connection
between the spine and the reservoir, respectively. These two small parts are common to all scenarios,
being its costs equal for each one. They are just necessary complements that should be added to the
diverse scenarios in order to get an accurate value of the costs and not only terms of comparison
between different cases. The project lifetime is assumed to be around 40 years, 1 for construction and
the rest in operation. The volume transported is typically of a post-demonstration project: 20 mega tons
per year. All scenarios were assessed in terms of investment (distributed over 12 years) and operational
expenditures, split in feeders, spine, distribution and network total costs. The final unit cost, the main
parameter of comparison, is therefore calculated in euros per ton of CO2 transported (€/ton). A
representation is in the figure 2.8 followed by the overall results shown in the table 2.6.
Figure 2.8 – Different networks composed by different spines: pipeline onshore, pipeline offshore and ship. (Adapted from:[66])
40
Table 2.6 – Table of costs for the three networks, split into investment and operational expenditures. (Adapted from: [66])
Cost Item Feeders Distribution Onshore
Spine Offshore
Spine Ship
Spine
Total Network
1
Total Network
2
Total Network
3
180 k
m
CAPEX (M€) 30.12 152.15 287.14 423.78 642.04 469.41 606.14 824.31
Annuity (M€/y) 2.53 12.76 24.08 35.54 53.84 39.37 50.83 69.13
OPEX (M€/y) 0.12 9.51 1.08 7.90 143.62 10.71 17.53 153.25
Total Cost (M€/y) 2.65 22.27 25.16 43.44 197.46 50.18 68.36 222.38
Unit Cost (€/Ton CO2) 2.50 3.42 11.12
500 k
m
CAPEX (M€) 30.12 152.15 774.08 1035.41 756.35 956.35 1217.68 938.62
Annuity (M€/y) 2.53 12.76 64.91 86.83 63.43 80.20 102.12 78.72
OPEX (M€/y) 0.12 9.51 3.00 21.94 156.37 12.63 31.57 166.00
Total Cost (M€/y) 2.65 22.27 67.91 108.77 219.79 92.83 133.69 244.71
Unit Cost (€/Ton CO2) 4.64 6.68 12.24
750 k
m
CAPEX (M€) 30.12 152.15 1148.58 1522.08 868.99 278.59 1704.35 1051.26
Annuity (M€/y) 2.53 12.76 96.32 130.16 72.87 19.79 145.45 88.16
OPEX (M€/y) 0.12 9.51 4.50 32.91 167.10 110.45 42.54 176.73
Total Cost (M€/y) 2.65 22.27 100.82 163.07 239.97 125.74 187.99 264.89
Unit Cost (€/Ton CO2) 6.29 9.40 13.24
1500 k
m
CAPEX (M€) 30.12 152.15 2283.10 3501.10 1120.59 2465.37 3683.37 1302.86
Annuity (M€/y) 2.53 12.76 191.46 293.60 93.98 206.75 308.89 109.27
OPEX (M€/y) 0.12 9.51 9.00 65.82 203.71 18.63 75.45 213.34
Total Cost (M€/y) 2.65 22.27 200.46 359.42 297.70 225.38 384.34 322.62
Unit Cost (€/Ton CO2) 11.27 19.22 16.13
As expected, network unit cost accompanies the distance increase in all the cases. Between
transport cost of onshore and offshore pipelines, it may be concluded that offshore cost is always higher
than the onshore one. The choice whether to use onshore or offshore pipelines is mainly constrained
by the reservoir location. If it is offshore, obviously that offshore pipelines are the only possibility between
those two. For onshore reservoirs, and if in the route between the source and the sink is a river or a sea,
the two possibilities might be feasible. In that case, the study of the distances and the determination of
which solution seems to be the cheapest should be performed.
A more realistic comparison is the one between offshore pipelines and ships. For marine
environments, there is no other solutions practicably for now. Results reveal that for distances smaller
than 750 km, pipeline solution is by far the cheapest one, under the conditions assumed. However, at a
certain point, the investment needed in the construction of offshore pipelines counterbalances the larger
operational costs of ships. Breakeven point appears, thus, before the 1500 km spine distance, where
shipping becomes less expensive.
41
Overall Pros and Cons
Besides cost, some other parameters should be part of the comparison and should be taken into
account, even representing a minor weight in the final decision. Some pros of each transportation mode
may be pointed in the table 2.7:
Table 2.7 – Overall comparison of the pros of both pipelines and ships.
Pipelines + Ships +
Low Opex Low Capex
Both onshore and offshore Large flexibility (volume and route)
Continuous flow Re-use potential
Less processes Public acceptance
No operational skill required Easy decommissioning
Less affected by environmental conditions High safety redundancy
2.5. Risk Analysis
Transportation of carbon dioxide has been successfully operated in the past decades, serving
several projects in different locations spread by Europe, United States and Canada. However, there is
not a perfect cause-effect notion about physical and chemical phenomena. Facilities as the es.CO2 is
example, are needed to scale up this technological system to an industrial size.
In this section one will develop an analysis of the drivers and risks perceived by the different
stakeholders involved in the transportation chain. As a final remark, some recommendations are drawn
to manage risks and reduce the knowledge gap in terms of regulation, which is currently incapacitating
the concretisation of several projects that are cancelled in the execution phase.
2.5.1. Drivers and Stakeholders
As there are general drivers for the overall CCS industry development, there are some specific
issues that may foster the transportation deployment in terms of technical knowledge and general
acceptance. These drivers must stimulate and be stimulated by the stakeholders, as pointed in the table
2.8:
Table 2.8 – Drivers and Stakeholders involved in the transportation process of a CCS project.
Drivers Stakeholders
Infrastructure re-use and requalification; Carbon dioxide sources administrators;
Financial underwriting companies;
The public;
Pipeline’s and Ship’s developers;
O&G companies;
Insurance companies;
Local and national regulators;
Climate regime administrators.
CO2 transport for second objective projects, such as Enhanced Oil Recovery;
Ship’s share between different stakeholders;
Regulatory stringency;
Technology development through economic or political
motives;
Involvement of insurance companies.
42
2.5.2. Risks Identification
Assessing risks is a key-step to allow the sustainable deployment of transportation related
technologies. Risks differ according with the transport type, pipeline or ship, depending on several
characteristics that define each one. Dividing the risks by technical and regulatory/economic and splitting
between pipeline and ship transportation, one may build the table 2.9:
Table 2.9 - Systemic risks for the pipeline and ship transportation process.
Technical Risks Regulatory/Economic Risks
Pip
eli
nes
Integration/adaption of solutions takes time; Cyber-attacks, which might compromise the viability of
the project;
Innovation is limited for reused infrastructures; Territory occupation taxes may drive off the investors;
Monitoring activities are prone to cyber-attacks, which
might affect the transportation security;
Temptation to increase the flow rate, which may cause
accidents;
Dependence on monitoring techniques to assure
safety practices, especially in buried and in offshore
pipelines;
Strict regulations in the admission of new technology,
which might slow its adoption;
Extra-care needed when crossing populated areas or
the ocean; Increased costs from the terrain increased complexity;
Control and maintenance of deep-water systems
highly dependent on sensors and remote systems, still
less accurate;
Excessive CAPEX and public difficult acceptance
associated;
Sh
ips
Newly concept – almost no data available; Regulation on the ship’s sharing;
Requires more infrastructures to liquefy the carbon
dioxide;
Strict regulations in the admission of new technology,
which might slow its adoption
Contamination of the water; Excessive CAPEX and OPEX associated;
Dependent on weather conditions (waves, tides…) Business risk of investing in low maturity technologies;
Interaction with and damage of the meiofauna; Maritime taxes may drive off the investors;
2.5.3. Managing Risks and Recommendations
The basis of an effective risk assessment and management is to know what stills unknown. As
seen over this chapter, the knowledge that exists today of CO2 transportation is supported mainly by
empirical experience over the past decades on commercial activities involving CO2. Some direct
guidelines were withdrawn from the O&G sector, used to transport fluids through pipelines and ship
tankers.
However, transportation is still seen as a new technology and many questions remain to be
answered to decrease the uncertainties, regarding both pipelines and ships. This knowledge gap
includes the following categories:
o Storage necessities – greater knowledge of storage in tanks, such as buffers or ships;
43
o Stream composition – study the behaviour and the effects of varying the purity of the
CO2 stream in different materials;
o Transient periods – understand the start-up and shut-down routines and other transient
periods;
o Negative impacts – confidence would be further enhanced by increased knowledge;
o Monitoring and instrumentation techniques – improve simulation, accuracy and cost-
effectiveness;
o Mitigation and remediation – lack of specific emergency plans for possible accidents,
as in the case of an explosion;
o Costs control – improve the knowledge of costs for the project and for the regulatory
compliance;
o Regulation and responsibility framework – clarify the role of each stakeholder and
project.
In an initial phase of CCS concepts, regulation becomes the ideal tool to properly manage risks.
The risks identified in the last section might require the development of an international regulatory
regime, ensuring, for every project, consistent monitoring and verification practices and accurate
reporting of global benefits and harms. This regulation should also provide specifications regarding
offshore transportation, where jurisdiction might not exist. Nevertheless, this regulation needs to be
flexible and adaptive, allowing an empirical learning. Guidelines for building an effective regulatory
system may be identified:
Scale of activity – transportation will be larger in scale than most currently covered under
legislation;
Monitoring and instrumentation practices – carbon dioxide demand specific control
necessities that should be clearly identified;
Specific risks management requirements – CO2 poses risks that are different from the
other fluids disposed in tanks or pipelines;
Uncertainties associated – regulation designed to manage transportation of carbon
dioxide should be adaptive and emphasize learning-by-doing;
Provide access to data and public input – the management of CO2 transportation must
be transparent, creating protocols between different entities and facilitating the access to
the results that may contribute to the development of other projects (as the Cubillos –
Compostilla is example of). Moreover, input from the public should be stimulated and
taken into account.
These regulations or recommended practices must be discussed and approved by the several
stakeholders that will affect or be affected during the lifetime of the project, ensuring a securely and
effectively manage of risks. Some other regulations, which are not directly linked with the project itself,
should be debated and implemented in order to motivate investment in this technological system. Taxes,
tradable permits or credits or financial programs are example of mechanisms that might be imposed by
the government of each interested country, stimulating a sustainable growth of CCS projects.
44
3. Assessing Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies
Carbon dioxide storage is the last step of the CCS chain. However, it is the proven evidence that
the last may not be the least. The reservoir choice is one of the major contributors for the viability of a
CCS project. If the location of the storage site is too far from the carbon dioxide source, or even if its
properties and characteristics turn the injection process too difficult, the whole project may be
compromised.
In this chapter, potential reservoirs and selection techniques are going to be identified, followed
by injection procedures and monitoring necessities. This topics are going to be addressed having as
starting point the case studies described below, regarding CO2 sequestration. The chapter ends with a
risk analysis, where some risks and recommendations are drawn.
3.1. Case Study Description
3.1.1. Case Study 3: Weyburn-Midale Enhanced Oil Recovery Project
Weyburn and Midale adjacent oil fields are operated by the Canada’s largest oil company:
EnCana. Weyburn field was discovered in 1954 with an estimated 1.4 billion barrels of original oil. In
1955 the production started and by 1963 was around 31500 barrels of oil per day. Starting in 1964,
water was pumped into injection wells in order to increase daily oil production. By 1966 production
reached 47200 barrels per day, declining steadily over the next 20 years until it dropped to 9400 barrels.
At that point, more vertical wells were drilled. In the 90’s horizontal wells came up and contributed to a
22000 barrels/day production. By 1998, roughly 330 million barrels of oil had been produced – about
23% of the oil in the reservoir [67]. Production was again declining rapidly. It was predicted that, unless
a new solution could be found to enhance oil recovery, total production would be no more than 350
million barrels – just 25% of the original oil in place.
In 1984, on the other side of the boarder (North Dakota; 320km distance), United States
government supported the building of the Great Plains Synfuels Plant. The goal of this facility was to
produce methane from coal, encouraging investment in alternative fuels, separating synthetic natural
gas from other compounds (mostly CO2). In 1997, Dakota Gasification Company, responsible for that
plant, agreed to send all the waste gas from the plant to Weyburn and Midale oil fields – through a
pipeline. In 2000 the CO2 transport infrastructure commenced its activity, daily transporting 8855 tons
of waste gas of which 96% is carbon dioxide. This level of purity is ideal for EOR purposes, as carbon
dioxide presents a higher dissolution when small impurities are present.
When CO2 supercritical fluid is pumped at high pressure into the reservoir, CO2 mixes with the
oil, causing it to swell and become less viscous. Swelling forces oil out of the pores in the rocks, so that
it can flow more easily. Water is pumped into the injection wells, alternating with CO2, to push the
released oil toward producer wells. Some of the injected CO2 at both Weyburn (6500 tons/day) and
Midale (2000 tons/day) is pumped back to the surface together with oil and water, then separated and
re-injected. At the end of the enhanced oil recovery period, it is expected that virtually all the injected
and recycled CO2 was permanently stored. It is predicted that the CO2 EOR operation enables an
45
additional 220 million barrels of oil to be produced, extending the field’s commercial life by approximately
25 years. The whole evolution may be seen in the figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 – Oil production over time and future predictions for the Weyburn and Midale fields.
(Source: [68])
The project had a total capital cost of 720 million dollars, 100 million of it being for the pipeline
construction. It is also anticipated that about 40 million tons of CO2 (30 in the Weyburn and 10 in the
Midale oil field) will be injected and become permanently stored 1500 m underground over the lifetime
of this project [69]. There is worldwide interest in this test of the viability of underground storage for
large-scale reduction in CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The Weyburn CO2 Monitoring and Storage
Project is funded by several international energy companies, the U.S. and Canadian governments, and
the European Union. So far, no leaks have been detected and none of the gas has escaped to the
surface.
In order to further identify and assess the risks, it was made by the projectors a list of Features,
Events and Processes (FEPs), which together describe the geological storage system. Features are
physical characteristics of the system properties (porosity, permeability, wells…); events are discrete
occurrences that may affect the system (earthquakes, leaks, fractures…); and processes are physico-
chemical processes that influence the evolution of the system (fluid behaviour, corrosion evolution,
minerals precipitation…). Table 3.1 (next page) summarizes the FEPs list for this project:
46
Table 3.1 – Examples of Features, Events and Processes (FEPs) for Weyburn-Midale CO2-EOR project. (Adapted from: [69])
SYSTEM FEPs
Rock Properties
Mechanical properties;
Mineralogy;
Organic matter composition;
Presence and nature of tectonic faults and fractures;
Cap rock integrity.
Hydrogeological Properties
Cross-formation flow;
Fluid characteristics of the rock;
Geometry and driving force of groundwater flow system;
Groundwater flow (including rate and direction);
Hydraulic pressure;
Hydrogeological properties of the rock;
Pore blockage;
Saline (or fresh) groundwater intrusion;
Transport pathways.
Chemical/Geochemical
Carbonation;
Colloid generation;
Borehole seal degradation (cement / concrete);
Dissolution of minerals/precipitates/organic matter;
Dissolution of CO2;
Dissolved organic material;
Groundwater chemistry;
Methanogenesis and microbial activity;
Mineral surface processes;
Precipitation and mineralisation properties;
Reactive gaseous contaminants;
Salinity gradient.
CO2 properties and transport
Advective flow and colloid transport;
Diffusion and dispersion;
Gas flow and source term distribution;
Thermodynamic state;
Abandoned Wells
Annular space;
Unsealed boreholes;
Corrosion of metal casing and its propagation;
Incomplete records of abandonment.
Geology
Local seismicity;
Temperature and thermal field;
Local uplift and subsidence.
Other Gases
Gas pressure (bulk gas);
Release and transport of impurities.
NON-SYSTEM FEPs (External)
Climate change;
Cross-formation flows;
Earthquakes;
Induced seismicity and fault activation;
Glaciation;
Mining and other underground activities;
Future monitoring;
Sea-level change;
Rock movements;
Future wells impact;
47
3.1.2. Case Study 4: Statoil Carbon Storage Projects
Statoil is a Norwegian multinational leading company in the Oil and Gas sector, founded in 1972
and 2/3 leaded by the government. They are considered one of the most technological advanced
companies, particularly about Carbon Capture and Storage projects. Statoil understands carbon dioxide
capture as, in the near future, one of the most important and promising climate measures. They pretend
to be one step further by building a technology centre, composed by several projects. The objective is
to develop more cost-effective technologies for carbon capture from different sources. Using those
projects as the basis for that centre, Statoil intends to generate significant business from carbon dioxide
management, mainly focusing on the storage step.
They are involved in 4 major projects: Sleipner West (Norway); Snøhvit (Norway); Mongstad
(Norway) and In Salah (Algeria). Sleipner West and Snøhvit projects are currently in operation, while
the In Salah is in a dormant status and Mongstad was cancelled. Figure 3.2 illustrates the timeline
evolution of Statoil’s projects:
Figure 3.2 – Statoil’s CCS projects timeline evolution. (Adapted from: www.statoil.com)
In the In Salah project, carbon dioxide was captured from the extracted natural gas, for both
commercial and technical reasons. It started in 2004, storing below ground more than three million
tonnes of CO2. Due to preliminary conclusions regarding the reservoir properties (mainly related to
capacity), the injection of CO2 was reduced in mid-2010 and stopped in June of 2011 as a safety
measure. Newer well data and seismic results are now used to assess the current injection strategy.
The Mongstad was a two-phase project. First, in June 2007, it was constructed the CO2
Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM), involving a partnership between the Norwegian state, Statoil,
Shell, and Sasol. The goal of TCM was to gain enough knowledge to move for phase 2, where a full-
scale facility capable of capturing CO2 from both the combined heat and power station and other relevant
emission sources at the refinery was planned. In September 2013, after several delays due to the lack
of regulatory framework, the Norwegian Government received massive criticism concerning the project
management and cost-control of the project. Consequently, the government decided to cancel the large-
scale CCS project and to only move on with the TCM, making it in a leading arena for development,
48
testing and qualification of CO2 capture technology, contributing to international dissemination, reduction
of costs and risks of full-scale projects.
Sleipner West
It is an offshore gas field proven in 1974 and located in the North Sea (240 km west of Stavanger,
Norway) at 2500 m depth. It is the second largest gas producer in the region, delivering gas to the
continent and to the United Kingdom. This natural gas contains a high percentage of carbon dioxide
and, because of that, Statoil build a special platform containing a treatment plant that separates the
excessive carbon dioxide – called Sleipner T (see figure 3.3).
In 1991 the government started to implement CO2 taxes for offshore oil and gas activities,
charging about $50 per ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Statoil decided therefore to implement
an injection facility, baptised Sleipner A, directly injecting carbon dioxide in a saline aquifer formation
located around 1000m below the seabed. This reservoir, called Utsira formation, has an expected
capacity of 600 billion tons CO2 – the equivalent to all human-made CO2 production for the next 20
years. Since 1996, the starting date of the project, there was captured and injected per annum one
million tonnes of carbon dioxide from natural gas production.
Statoil has been focused on sharing information and experience from Sleipner results, which led
the company to actively participate and advise on the regulatory framework concerning the storage of
carbon dioxide, both nationally and internationally. In addition to a number of international research
institutions, Norwegian institutions SINTEF and NTNU have been deeply involved. The subsurface
storage has been mapped in various research projects, some of which partly funded by EU. Seismic
surveys and other measurements show that storage and extent of CO2 underground are in line with the
plans established prior to injection. Several articles have been published based on data from Sleipner.
Figure 3.3 – Schematic representation of Sleipner CCS project. (Adapted from: www.steverichey.com)
49
Snøhvit
A liquefied natural gas facility has been built at Melkøya, near Hammerfest in northern Norway.
At this LNG plant is used offshore gas taken from the Snøhvit oil and gas field (located at 145km from
the plant, 2500m deep below the seabed, 300 m of water depth), explored by Statoil company. This field
was developed with subsea installations, being the gas transported through a multiphase pipeline since
October 2007. It is the first major development on the Norwegian continental shelf with no surface
installations, designed to be over-trawlable so that neither they nor fishing equipment will suffer any
damage from coming into contact.
At the LNG plant the gas is liquefied by cooling it down to -163 degrees Celsius. This makes
possible its exportation by ship to Europe and USA. However, Snøhvit gas generally contains 5-6%
CO2, which freezes to solid matter (dry ice) at a higher temperature than natural gas. Therefore, it must
be removed before the gas is cooled into LNG. Moreover, CO2 also has to be separated from
hydrocarbons at a sufficiently early stage in the process, so that the gas mixture does not freeze and
block heat exchangers in the processing plant.
As such, Statoil decided to sequestrate that carbon dioxide in April 2008. A separate pipeline
transported CO2 back to the Snøhvit field, where it was stored in an appropriate geological layer of
porous sandstone, called the Tubåen formation, until 2011. Thenceforth, the storage was moved to the
original reservoir where natural gas was removed, called Stø formation.
A dedicated monitoring programme has been established to examine how carbon dioxide
behaves in the reservoir, partly financed by EU. The reservoir is monitored using 4D-seismic technology,
and no leakage has been detected.
A front-to-front of these two studied projects is presented in the table 3.2, showing that they are
very similar except in two categories of costs. Capture and transport is less costly in the Sleipner case
as it captures and injects in the same place, avoiding the transportation infrastructure. At the same time,
storage in the Snøhvit is more expensive, since the reservoir is two times deeper.
Table 3.2 – Comparison of Sleipner and Snøhvit cases. (Adapted from: [70])
Project Sleipner Snøhvit
Starting date 1996 2008 Location Offshore Offshore Storage type Deep Saline Aquifer Deep Saline Aquifer CO2 injection rate (Mt CO2 yr-1) 1 0.7 Pipeline length (km) 0 145 Initial number of wells 1 1 Capital Investment Costs (M€)
Capture and Transport 79 143 Compression and Dehydration 79 70 Pipeline - 73 Drilling and well completion 15 25 Storage 15 48 Facilities Not available 12 Other Not available 11
Total capital investment costs (M€) 94 191
50
3.2. Reservoirs
Selection Criteria
In the case study 3 described, the storage reservoir was not a variable of the project as it was
considered as an Enhanced Oil Recovery project. Thus, the reservoir had to be the one where Oil/Gas
exploration was occurring. The selection criteria, in this cases, is only used to understand the possibility
and viability of injecting and storing carbon dioxide in that formation and location, without considering
any other possibilities.
When the project starts from the very beginning and the storage reservoir is not constrained,
different types of storage reservoirs, related with its location or geological characteristics, may be
considered. Selecting whether it is suitable to store carbon dioxide involves numerous and complex
steps, which might be split in four levels:
1st level: tectonic setting; basin size; depth; hydrodynamic and geothermal regimes; on/offshore;
accessibility; existing petroleum and coal resources; industry maturity [71].
2nd level: distance from CO2 source; seal capacity; trap type; storage capacity; injectivity;
existing natural resources [72].
3rd level: structural and stratigraphic model; engineering characterisation (simulations, process
plan, monitoring plan); socio-economic characterisation (economics; risk and uncertainty
evaluation) [73].
4th level: deployment (proved capacity, monitoring, economics, injection, regulations) [73].
The figure 3.4 summarizes these steps, on a pyramidal overview. As one moves up the pyramid,
through an increase of data collected and effort, the uncertainty decreases as well as the effective
storage volume (initial forecast is generally majored):
Figure 3.4 - Steps to follow to choose a suitable storage location. (Source: [74])
51
Potential Reservoirs
Currently, considered storage options for CO2 in geological media, which respect all the
necessary conditions broken down by the described criteria, are: deep saline formations; depleted or in
depletion oil and gas fields; unmineable coal seams and even the ocean. Those reservoirs may be
classified as valued or non-value added sites:
Non-value added sites: developed only for CO2 storage such as the case study 1 and 4,
like depleted oil and gas reservoirs, the ocean and deep saline formations;
Value added sites: as in case studies 3, developed primarily for enhanced recovery of
fossil fuel fluids and storage of CO2 as a secondary benefit, such as sites for enhanced
oil recovery (EOR), enhanced gas recovery (EGR) and enhanced coalbed methane
recovery (ECBM).
Deep Saline Formations
Carbon dioxide is an ideal candidate for aquifer storage because of its high density and high
solubility in water at the relatively high pressures which exist in deeper aquifers [69]. They are located
several kilometres below the surface, containing water that is considered unusable due to its excessive
content of salt and minerals. They could host large amounts of CO2 trapped by the formation pressure
(cap rock), representing the largest potential storage capacity in the long term. However, currently they
are less well understood and global capacity estimates vary significantly due to different assumptions
made by different entities about the volume of the reservoir already filled with other fluids, CO2 density
under the reservoir conditions and the maximum allowable volume. It ranges from 87 to 14000 Gt of
carbon [69], which corresponds to 326 to 52500 Gt of carbon dioxide.
Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs
An obvious and proven answer for the storage problem is the use of O&G reservoirs that are no
longer in use. If the reservoir stored the hydrocarbon for so long, it is able as well to store carbon dioxide
in the future. There are several advantages in this reusing strategy: trapping mechanisms and reservoir
properties are well known and some of the existing infrastructure used in the oil extraction may be
employed. Even so, reservoirs that have had a large number of extraction wells might not be
appropriated, since they increase substantially leakage pathways for CO2.
There are differences between a reuse of an oil and a gas reservoir. An abandoned oil reservoir
has generally large quantities of residual oil remaining in it. As such, it is very unlikely that stakeholders
approve a usage of the reservoir as a storage facility unless some oil recovery strategy may be
implemented. At this point, there is need to further assess some legal questions regarding the ownership
of these residual hydrocarbons. In the case of a depleted gas reservoir up to 90% of the original content
has been removed, in normal cases. The reason for this much higher extraction rate is the fuel’s higher
compressibility and lower viscosity, compared to oil. As so, the reservoir can genuinely be considered
as depleted and the stakeholders do not create difficulties for CO2 storage. Estimated global storage of
oil fields is 150Gt CO2 (40Gt C), while the depleted gas reservoirs may represent 520Gt CO2 (140Gt C).
52
In Depletion Oil and Gas Reservoirs
In active oil and gas fields that are reaching the end of their productivity, carbon dioxide may be
used to increase hydrocarbon quantities recovered from the porous rocks, as scrutinised in the case
studies described in this chapter. Injected CO2 increases the pressure of the cap, pushing the stored
hydrocarbon towards the production wells, enhancing the recovery of a significant amount of it. In the
case of the oil, oil-carbon dioxide mixture is separated at the surface and the oil is used as fuel in the
normal way. This carbon dioxide may be re-injected or injected in deep aquifers.
This process, called Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery (EOR/EGR), can be very attractive since the
cost of CCS may be offset. The use of CO2 can recover up to 12% of remaining fuels, which has a huge
economic impact. As the depleted/inactive oil and gas reservoirs, these sites are more likely to be used
for early projects as extensive information from geological and hydrodynamic assessments is already
available. However, other methods will become more viable as technology is being developed. Globally,
the EOR has an estimated capacity of 20 to 65Gt C. The EGR has not yet an estimate and is still being
tested, as the pressure needed to recover the remaining gas is higher (as explained above).
Unmineable Coal Seams
Another possible storage medium is the unmineable coal, which is the coal that cannot be
extracted due to its location conditions. In this cases, carbon dioxide may be injected into suitable coal
seams, where it will be adsorbed onto the coal, locking it up permanently. In this process, methane that
was not extracted by normal depressurisation techniques (around 50%), may be recovered (ECBM).
Moreover, coal can adsorb about twice as much CO2 by volume as methane, so even if recovered
methane is burned and the resulting CO2 is injected, the coal bed can still provide net storage. A nearly
pure stream of carbon dioxide is not required for this storage process, as residual gases are not
adsorbed and will came out together with methane. The estimate, on a global level, for this type of
reservoir yields a potential of 82 to 263 Gt C.
Ocean
This type of storage is almost completely disruptive compared with the ones previously exposed.
It is evidently offshore, while the previous ones described may be either onshore or offshore. It is simply
related with the different densities of salted water and carbon dioxide. Ocean storage may be done in
two ways: by injecting and dissolving carbon dioxide into the water column below 1000 meters or by
depositing carbon dioxide onto the sea floor at depths below 3000 meters, where CO2 is denser than
water and is expected to form a lake that would delay its dissolution into the surrounding environment.
In both cases, it may be done through a pipeline or a ship + platform.
Clearly, an ocean carbon sequestration program will be successful only if its intended benefits (a
stabilization of atmospheric CO2 and mitigation of climate warming consequences for terrestrial and
shallow water ocean systems) outweigh its liabilities (energy expended on sequestration and damage
to deep-sea ecosystems). Presently, there is a lack of sufficient information to perform this balance.
An interesting study has been performed by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,
entitled “Effects of Direct Ocean CO2 Injection on Deep-Sea Meiofauna” [28]. The results, observed by
a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV), clearly illustrate the necessity of a knowledge improvement about
53
different variables before this process may become a reality. Figure 3.5 on the left shows the progressive
vector of the flow at depths below 3600m, concluding that the CO2 plume will disperse in several
directions (even though the mean flow goes to southeast. On the right it is represented the pH variation
detected by the ROV sensor, explained by the dissolution (lowering the pH of the water) and the currents
(bringing new water with a neutral pH):
Figure 3.5 – Effects of Direct Ocean CO2 Injection on Deep-Sea Meiofauna. On the left, the progressive
vector diagram illustrating flow, from the left to the right. A black circle notes the start of each day. On the right, the pH perturbations during the CO2 depletion. (Source: [28])
Trapping Mechanisms
At the storage site, carbon dioxide is injected under pressure into the geological formation. It must
be injected at depths below 0.8 km, as CO2 increases in density with depth and becomes a supercritical
fluid below that depth. Supercritical fluids, as seen, take up much less space and diffuse better than
either gases or ordinary liquids through the tiny pore spaces in storage rocks. At this conditions, the CO2
is less dense than the existing water in the reservoir. Therefore, it rises upwards due to the buoyancy
force where there is a necessity of a trapping mechanism that retains the injected carbon dioxide in the
subsurface.
Four main ways are identified as the main trapping mechanisms in which dense carbon dioxide
may be trapped at depths below 800 m: structural/stratigraphic; residual; solubility or mineral:
Structural/Stratigraphic – it is the first mechanism preventing the migration of the carbon dioxide.
As the injected CO2 rises up through the porous rocks, it becomes trapped when it finds the top of the
formation constituted by an impermeable layer of cap rock. Structural traps are found mainly due to
anticlines or faults, while stratigraphic traps exist due to unconformities or changes in the rock type,
being practically the same traps that kept oil and natural gas securely trapped for millions of years. In
deep aquifers generally there is no cap rock that sustains the carbon dioxide efficiently. It is expected
to migrate under the force of buoyancy, taking a pathway determined by the complex plumbing of the
sedimentary basin. According to [69], only a few deep aquifers will leak significantly over human time
scales (hundreds of years).
54
Residual – As the injected carbon dioxide moves up through the geological storage site towards
the cap rock, some of it is left behind in microscopic pore spaces of the rock. Some reservoir rocks have
the capacity to behave like a sponge, holding the liquid carbon dioxide (droplets) in its pore spaces,
avoiding carbon dioxide migration even under high pressure.
Solubility – This phase of the trapping process involves the dissolution of carbon dioxide in
existing water in the porous rock. This water containing CO2 will become denser than the surrounding
fluids and will sink to the bottom of the rock formation, decreasing leakage risk.
Mineral – As the dissolution of carbon dioxide occurs in water, it forms a weak carbonic acid. Over
the time, this acid can react with surrounding minerals and form solid carbonate minerals, as a coating
on the rock. This trapping mechanism effectively binds the CO2 to the rock.
As the storage mechanisms change over time from structural to residual, dissolution and then
mineral storage, carbon dioxide becomes less and less mobile. Therefore the longer carbon dioxide is
stored the lower the risk of any leakage, as shown in the figure 3.6:
Figure 3.6 – Trapping contributions from different mechanisms and security increase over the time for CO2
injection. (Source: [4])
55
3.3. Injection Well
The injection process requires advanced technology to ensure a safe and efficient injection of
large quantities of carbon dioxide into the subsurface. Many of the technology was already developed
and used on the O&G sector. Furthermore, and as already pointed out, Enhanced Oil Recovery has
been made in some cases injecting carbon dioxide. As so, the concepts of drilling, injection, stimulations
and completions for CO2 injection wells are already studied and practised.
Design Approach
An injection well is a device that pumps the fluid deep underground, where the reservoir is located.
A scheme of a CO2 injection well and wellhead is shown in the figure 3.7. An injection well is commonly
equipped with two valves: one for regular use and another reserved for safety shutoff. It is recommend
to use a third valve, called downhole safety valve, which is responsible for automatically shut down the
well, preventing a backflow scenario. A downhole configuration includes a double-grip packer and an
on-off tool. Downhole components for CO2 are better prepared to handle higher pressures and higher
corrosion than the ones used to inject natural gas for the same purpose – EOR.
Figure 3.7 – Typical CO2 injection well and wellhead configuration. (Source: [70])
Recent technology implemented in the O&G sector, which removes the oil by a horizontally well
may be exponentially explored by the CCS projects, as it already happened in the case study 4. It
increases storage capacity and the maximum injection rate of a certain reservoir, as it creates an
injection profile that reduces adverse effects of high-permeability zones.
The number of wells depend on several factors: injection rate; formation properties (porosity;
thickness…); maximum injection pressures and availability of land-surface free area to drill new injection
wells. An injection with fewer wells is preferable as the possible migration/leakage paths is reduced.
Generally, the number of needed wells increases with low-permeability sediments, thin storage
formations and if they are vertical wells. Overall cost of the injection process depends greatly of the
56
wells number design optimization. Fewer wells does not directly imply a reduction of costs, as the
technology needed may be more expensive.
Operation Conditions
In order to inject carbon dioxide into the storage formation, the downhole injection pressure needs
to be higher than the reservoir fluid pressure. Otherwise, the fluid existent in the reservoir will push
carbon dioxide and will cause the backflow scenario. However, increasing pressure may induce
fractures in the formation, which may destroy the reservoir and promote several leaks. Regulatory
agencies normally limit the maximum downhole pressure, taking into account the measurements of the
formation stresses and pore fluid pressures.
Abandonment
Abandonment procedures should be carried out to prevent contamination of the surrounding
environment. The well must be closed or otherwise carbon dioxide may migrate up the well and into
shallow drinking waters, for example. These procedures generally require placing cement or mechanical
plugs in all or part of the well, as it happens in the O&G industry. Extra care has to be taken to use
sealing plugs and cement that are resistant to the carbon dioxide.
The cement plug will act as the main barrier to future CO2 migration. A major issue is related to
the sealing quality of the cement plug and the bonding quality with the penetrated cap rock, as shown
in the figure 3.8. Micro-channels created near the wellbore during drilling or milling operations should
be sealed with cement. Fluid could also be flushed into the storage reservoir to displace the CO2 and
help to improve the cementing quality and bonding to the sealing cap rock. Casing protective materials
and alternative casing materials, such as composites, should also be evaluated for possible and
alternative abandonment procedures. Sealing performance of abandoned wells may need to be
monitored for some time after storage operations are completed [70].
Figure 3.8 – Possible leakage pathways in an abandoned well: a) and b) between casing and cement wall
and plug, respectively; c) through cement plugs; d) through casing; e) through cement wall; f) between cement wall
and rock. (Source: [75])
57
Challenges
Technical challenges that still to be discussed and researched are mainly related to long-term
effects. Knowledge of injection and storage processes was cloned from the Oil&Gas sector, which has
been doing similar activities in the past decades. As shown in figure 3.9, injection rates in the order of
magnitude of a 500MW coal power plant storage necessities had been already reached and greatly
overpassed by Enhanced Oil Recovery projects. It is proved, thus, that storage of carbon dioxide is
feasible with the existing technology. Advancements on the technology and knowledge of the processes
will afford a more sustainable and faster growth.
Figure 3.9 – Injection rates of different projects compared with the CO2 emissions of a 500MW coal power
plant. (Data from: [76])
Weyburn EOR project has the same injection rate needed for a 500MW coal power plant. For that
reason, direct comparisons and conclusions may be withdrawn from there for that kind of projects. The
case study 4, regarding the Sleipner and Snøhvit projects, have not an injection rate much below the
one needed for a 500MW coal power plant, which reinforces the importance of those projects developed
by the Norwegian company Statoil.
3.4. Measurement, Monitoring and Verification
Monitoring activities should follow all the storage phases: pre-operation; operation; closure and
post-closure. The confidence of a safely injected and stored carbon dioxide can be achieved by using
Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) technologies. Further than that, it also provides
verification to both numerical modelling and performance assessment and the necessary accounting
metrics for emissions trading scenarios based on geological storage, which assumes primordial
importance in the development phase of CCS projects.
The project should be assessed by a monitoring program on three different domains: subsurface;
near-surface and atmospheric. The phenomena that may cause some perturbations for those domains
are related with:
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Inje
ctio
n R
ate
(to
nn
es/d
ay)
EOR
Storage
500MW Coal Power Plant
58
Migration – referring to the movement of fluids (as the injected CO2) within the injection formation.
This may involve vertically or horizontally movement in the designated subsurface domain.
Leakage – referring also to the movement of fluids but outside of the formation/reservoir, in the
near-surface domain. This phenomena is especially important to control since that a leakage of CO2
may contaminate the biosphere.
Seepage – referring to the movement of fluids from the geosphere to the biosphere, acting on the
near-surface and atmospheric domain.
There are a number of key steps involved in the design of a systematic approach to successfully
plan monitoring programs [69]: defining project conditions; predicting mechanisms that control
behaviour; answering technical questions; selecting parameters to be measured and identifying their
role in technical questions; determining the magnitude of expected change in parameters; selecting
instrumentation and monitoring approaches/systems; selecting instrument or monitoring locations;
determining timeframes and the depth for monitoring.
Monitoring Technologies
Monitoring technologies for CCS projects, as it happened with the transportation of carbon
dioxide, learned a lot from the O&G sector. Many of the techniques were adapted for site
characterisation, where the data obtained is used to understand the viability of the reservoir in terms of
characteristics, challenges and risks. Other new techniques are being studied to improve the knowledge
about carbon dioxide storage state.
Monitoring the reservoir involves: seismic imaging and downhole pressure/temperature
measurements; gravimetry, electromagnetics and other. For leakage monitoring onshore, surface or
atmospheric techniques such as eddy covariance, open path lasers, soil gas flux and concentration
measurements can be deployed. Leakage into the marine environment can be detected and measured
using seabed and water-column acoustic imaging and sampling, water geochemistry, benthic chambers,
and ROV observation of seabed fauna. These technologies are represented in the figure 3.10 and may
be rearranged in three categories: geophysical, geochemical and environmental. [26], [69]
Geophysical – This field uses seismic, electromagnetic, gravity, micro-seismic and displacement
sensors and petro physical measurements. The migration path of carbon dioxide may be known by the
surface seismic monitoring. It maps the CO2 plume, through the comparison between the initial surveys
carried out before the injection and the surveys repeated during and after the injection. Micro-seismic
surveys are mostly used to monitor the possible reactivation of fractures or other seismic faults due to
the vibration released during the injection process.
Geochemical – Example of this techniques are geochemical analysis of fluids, gases, rocks, soil,
ground and surface water and even of the atmosphere. It is possible to tag the CO2 stream, through
chemical tracers, in order to verify the plume behaviour. High quality fluid and gas samples, through a
monitoring well, may be collected at several depths and afterwards chemically and isotopically tested in
order to detect if there is any carbon dioxide presence.
Environmental – This techniques include atmospheric gas detection/dispersion modelling and
soil analysis. These measurements are collected by atmospheric stations, as a CO2 flux tower is
example of, or by analysing the soil in several locations of the project area.
59
Figure 3.10 – Different monitoring techniques and their application range. (Source: www.ccsbrowser.com)
3.5. Risk Analysis
Storage of carbon dioxide is not a newly concept, it has been successfully used in the last 30
years in small applications. At a commercial/industrial scale, storage deployment started in the Canada
and in Norway twenty years ago. Drivers were different for the two cases, the first aimed enhance the
recovery rate of the oil reserves and the second project intended to mitigate the impact of emission
taxes and separate excessive content of CO2 in the gas. However, there are still difficulties and
unknowns to be overcome regarding technological, economical and public acceptance about the carbon
dioxide sequestration.
In this section, as in the chapter 2, one will develop an analysis of drivers and risks perceived by
the different stakeholders associated with this CCS step. As a final remark, some recommendations are
drawn to manage risks and reduce the knowledge gap that is currently incapacitating the concretisation
of several projects that are cancelled in the execution phase.
3.5.1. Drivers and Stakeholders
Behind the common drivers for the overall CCS industry development, there are some specific
issues that may foster the storage evolution in terms of technical knowledge and general acceptance.
These drivers must stimulate and be stimulated by the stakeholders, as pointed in the table 3.3:
Table 3.3 – Drivers and Stakeholders involved in the storage process of a CCS project.
Drivers Stakeholders
CO2 storage as second objective, such as Enhanced Oil
Recovery projects;
Carbon dioxide sources administrators;
Financial underwriting companies;
The public;
Geological storage sites developers;
O&G companies;
Insurance companies;
Local and national regulators;
Climate regime administrators.
Infrastructure re-use, like platforms and wells;
Regulatory stringency;
Technology development through economic or political
motives
Involvement of insurance companies, covering damages
caused by leakages, for example.
60
3.5.2. Risks Identification
Assessing risks is a key-step to allow the sustainable deployment of the storage related
technologies, as it is for the transportation. Risks differ according with the storage mechanism and
formation, they depend on several characteristics that define each one. Dividing the risks by technical
and regulatory/economic, as made in the last chapter, and splitting between onshore/offshore and ocean
storage, one may build the table 3.4:
Table 3.4 – Systemic risks for the onshore, offshore and ocean storage process.
Technical Regulatory/Economic
On
sh
ore
/Off
sh
ore
Integration/adaption of solutions takes time – delays of
Oil&Gas production;
Cyber-attacks, which might compromise the viability of
the project;
Innovation is limited for reused infrastructures; Sequestration taxes may drive off the investors;
Relocation of platforms is rare and difficult; Temptation to increase the recovery rate, which may
cause accidents;
Monitoring activities are prone to cyber-attacks, which
might affect the storage security;
Project development and investment highly dependent
on O&G prices
Water/ground contamination on the vicinities of the
injection well/reservoir;
Strict regulations in the admission of new technology,
which might slow its adoption
Dependence on monitoring techniques, as there are
no other methods; Excessive CAPEX and OPEX (offshore) associated;
Induced seismic events; Increased costs from the increased complexity;
Control/maintenance of deep-water systems highly
dependent on sensors/remote systems, which are still
less accurate;
Oc
ea
n
Newly concept – almost no data available; Public acceptance is more difficult;
Requires remotely operated vehicles for monitoring
operations;
Strict regulations in the admission of new technology,
which might slow its adoption
Increased difficulties to simulate in laboratory; Excessive CAPEX associated;
Control and maintenance of deep-water systems
highly dependent on sensors and remote systems, still
less accurate;
Business risk of investing in low maturity technologies;
Contamination of the water and interaction with the
meiofauna; Sequestration taxes may drive off the investors;
Dependent on weather conditions (waves, tides…)
61
3.5.3. Managing Risks and Recommendations
The basis of an effective risk assessment and management is to know what stills unknown. As
seen over this chapter, knowledge that exists today of CO2 injection and storage is supported mainly in
earth sciences, O&G experience over the past decades and on commercial activities involving CO2 in
the last 30 years. However, carbon dioxide injection and storage is still seen as a new technology and
many questions remain to be answered to decrease uncertainties. This knowledge gap comprises the
following categories:
o Storage mechanisms – greater knowledge of geochemical trapping, adsorption and
desorption and their long-term impacts;
o Storage capacity – need of more development on assessment methodologies;
o Negative impacts – confidence would be further enhanced by increased knowledge;
o Monitoring and verification techniques – improve accuracy and cost-effectiveness;
o Mitigation and remediation – lack of emergency plans for possible accidents, as in the
case of a carbon dioxide leakage;
o Costs control – improve the knowledge of costs for non-EOR projects and for the
regulatory compliance;
o Regulation and responsibility framework – clarify the role of each stakeholder and
project.
The ideal tool to properly manage risks, in an initial phase of CCS concepts, is through regulation.
The risks identified in the last section may require the development of an international regulatory regime,
ensuring, for every project, consistent monitoring and verification practices and accurate reporting of
global benefits and harms. This regulation should also provide specifications regarding the injection and
storage in the oceans and beneath the seabed, where jurisdiction might not exist. Nevertheless, this
regulation needs to be flexible and adaptive, allowing an empirical learning.
Guidelines for building an effective regulatory system may be identified based on [69]:
Scale of activity – storage and injection processes will be larger in scale than most
currently covered under legislation;
Monitoring and verification practices – not all existing regulations require monitoring
and verification of the stored carbon dioxide;
Specific risks management requirements – CO2 poses risks that are different from the
other fluids disposed underground;
Uncertainties associated – regulation designed to manage injection and storage of
carbon dioxide should be adaptive and emphasize learning-by-doing;
Provide access to data – the management of CO2 storage must be transparent, creating
protocols between different entities and facilitating the access to the results that may
contribute to the development of other projects (as the Hontomín – Compostilla is
example of);
Enable public input – information about the project should be made available to the
public and input from the public should be facilitated and taken into account.
62
4. Discussion and Summary
4.1. Summary
The extraction and combustion of world’s rich resources of oil, coal and natural gas at current or
even increasing rates, releasing more of the stored carbon into the atmosphere, is no longer
environmentally acceptable. Hence, Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage technologies currently being
developed must be widely deployed. Therefore, the main purpose of this thesis until here was to identify,
assess and understand the technological evolution, such as design, construction and operation
requirements of carbon dioxide transportation and storage.
In the introductory chapter 1, the world distribution of relevant projects of CCS was identified and
categorized into actives, completed, hold, terminated or potential projects. Worldwide, there are
currently 145 projects, of which 63 actives, 6 completed, 22 holding, 38 already terminated and 16
potential projects. The main conclusion withdrawn from that distribution was the embryonic contribution
that they make in global terms against the endless number of carbon dioxide sources, which turns
difficult any kind of foresight regarding the future role of CCS technologies. Nevertheless, the trend is
positive and in the past decade, as illustrated in the figure 4.1, the investment and the projects are
growing in a sustainable way.
Figure 4.1 – Evolution of the number of CCS projects, investment and carbon managed. (Data from: [77])
It was discussed also the difference between a technological system, which is a set of radical and
incremental cross-linked innovations, and the technology itself. Together, they define and are defined
by the so called technological trajectories, shaped by a range of social, institutional, economic and
environmental situations. In this scope, three main technological trajectories were presented regarding
the CCS implementation in thermal power plants:
Continuity – change totally for renewable energy, reinforcing the investment and
improving efficiency results;
Intermediary – continue fossil fuels consumption but capturing carbon dioxide, mitigating
climacteric issues. In parallel, invest must be given as well to the renewables;
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cumulative Projects
Cumulative Investment (€)*10^-9
Cumulative Carbon Managed (Tonnes/Day)*10^-4
63
Disruptive – radical innovations in the electricity generation such as portable power
stations, transmitting electrical power through subsea cables over long distances.
These technological trajectories show the possible influence that CCS projects may have in re-
shaping other related industries, as the technology improves and new concepts are explored. For that,
dissemination of the required knowledge about Carbon Capture and Storage has a long way to go, to
leave from a utopic idea to a changing concepts reality. Accordingly to a Social Perception Study,
performed by “Fundación Ciudad de la Energía” (CIUDEN), the public sensitivity when asked if Carbon
Capture and Storage may contribute to mitigate the climate change is shown in the graphic of figure 4.2:
Figure 4.2 – Public perception of CCS contribution to mitigate the climate change. (Source: CIUDEN)
The people inquired were randomly selected, without receiving any information (left) about
Carbon Capture and Storage technological system. Thus, one may conclude that 83% of the population
does not think that CCS will perform an important role in a climate change mitigation strategy. However,
the lack of knowledge about this theme may be observed in the graphic on the right, where information
was given to the people inquired and the question was made again. The number of people agreeing
that CCS may be the solution for climate change control increased more than four times.
An immediate conclusion is, thus, that general public opinion and acceptance strongly depends
on the knowledge that they have about Carbon Capture and Storage. It is a good indicator, as they
immediately trust in this system soon after receiving information about it. However, it shows also the
lack of knowledge that is still present about this reality – which is a strong barrier to CCS deployment.
Afterwards, still in the first chapter, it was explained the methodology to be used throughout the
thesis, strongly based on a case study analysis, broaden the view of the technology application and
deepening the overall understanding of what is being studied. The methodology was influenced also by
a combination of risk analysis and flexibility in engineering design, based on a robust Risk Governance
Framework (IRGC), allowing the identification of drivers, stakeholders, challenges, risks and benefits.
The second chapter was dedicated exclusively to carbon dioxide transportation: either by pipeline
or ship. After the description of the transportation network, where the connection between the source
No opinion;
38%
Not the solution;
16%
Agree; 17%
Disagree; 28%
No opinion;
18%
Agree; 75%
Disagree; 7%
No information After information
64
and reservoir is projected and optimized, both transportation modes are singularly explained through a
case study research for each one:
Case Study 1 – Technology Development Plant es.CO2: description of the Spanish
experimental facility of Carbon Capture and Storage, involving the transportation of
carbon dioxide using pipelines.
Case Study 2 – LCO2 Carrier Ship: ship specially conceived for CO2 transportation, in
a liquefied state.
A general comparative analyses is also made, comparing the various costs of each transportation
mode for four different distances. Finally, in the last section, are addressed drivers, stakeholders, risks
and recommendations.
Carbon Dioxide Storage is considered in the chapter 3, where reservoirs, injection wells and
monitoring technologies are deeply analysed. This analysis is made using two more case studies of
CCS projects:
Case Study 3 – Weyburn-Midale Enhanced Oil Recovery Project: example of a
successfully Enhanced Oil Recovery project, where carbon dioxide was not stored as
primer objective.
Case Study 4 – Statoil Carbon Storage Projects: deep study of the Statoil’s
contribution for CCS development, mainly due environmental requirements established
by the Norwegian government and policy makers.
As in chapter 2, in the last section of that chapter are addressed drivers, stakeholders, risks and
recommendations.
In this final chapter, chapter 4, the knowledge gained from the analysis done in the previous
chapters and summarized above must be gathered and integrated in the global scenario of a constant
change in energy demand and sources, called “Energy Transitions Era”. Considering past events,
unknowns and growing uncertainty in the global economy, one will identify the technological paths that
CCS industry may follow and how they can influence and be influenced by possible energetic scenarios
and industrial policies.
A recurring theme in this thesis is change: in scenarios, contexts, technological systems and
technologies. This dynamic evolution create many opportunities to be exploited. As so, and as said in
the chapter 1, this thesis is performed under the scope of the International Observatory of Global Policies
(OIPG), particularly linked to the +atlantic project. This thesis share, therefore, the project’s objective:
an international agenda aimed to promote the scientific, technological and industrial capacity of Portugal
towards the sustainable exploration of the Atlantic, taking advantage of the many opportunities arising
internationally: the new oil and gas discoveries in Portuguese speaking countries; the extension of the
Portuguese continental shelf; and the shift in paradigm towards subsea exploration.
65
4.2. Technological Challenges Overview
Carbon Capture and Storage technological system has yet a lot of challenges to face and
overcome. A good indicator of these amount of barriers, which might delay the implementation of this
technological system is the current development status, maturity of the technologies and related
industries. After the analysis made to the different case studies, both in chapter 3 and 4, one may now
really understand the highest state of the art founded on the several components that make part of the
CCS chain, pointed in the table 4.3. There are four possible development phases: research,
demonstration, economically feasible under specific conditions and mature.
Table 4.1 – Highest maturity level observed for each CCS component and specific technology. (Adapted from: [4])
CCS Component CCS Technology
Rese
arc
h P
ha
se
Dem
on
str
ati
on
Ph
as
e
Eco
no
mic
ally
Feasib
le
Matu
re
Capture
Post-Combustion
Pre-Combustion
Oxy-Fuel
Transportation Pipeline
Shipping
Geological Storage
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Oil/Gas Fields
Saline Formations
Enhanced Coal Bed Methane Recovery
Ocean Storage Dissolution Type
Lake Type
Industrial Uses of CO2
Transportation of carbon dioxide, as discussed in the chapter 3, achieved high standard levels
even though some phenomena regarding the properties of the fluid are not still fully understood. The
case study 3 and 4 show that a learn-by-doing mentality is perhaps the strongest way to build knowledge
and experience in pipeline transportation. In these cases, it was used overdesigned equipment and a
fail control strategy. Regarding shipping transportation, this mentality is less adopted due to difficulties
in monitoring and fail control procedures.
The storage knowledge was extremely leveraged by the Oil & Gas expertise, research and
experience in the past decades. Enhanced Oil Recovery enabled not only the improvement of the
extraction coefficient of the reservoir but also the indirect development of carbon dioxide sequestration
techniques and technologies.
66
4.3. Risks in the CCS Industry
Gathering both analysis regarding transportation and storage, one may now establish a more
generalist risk analysis involving the whole CCS industry and evaluating global benefits and risks of this
technology. This analysis follows once more the IRGC methodology and takes into account the major
concerns of the industry, experts and academics.
This is an essential part of the technological system development in order to gather vital
information to overcome, analyse, govern and manage all the possible events, creating some knowledge
on the uncertainty, permitting from the very beginning a flexible design approach.
4.3.1. Benefits, Drivers and Stakeholders
Supported by a flexible but solid design approach, potential benefits from CCS were identified by
R&D agendas and experts’ foresights:
Fossil fuels consumption in a carbon constrained world;
Reduction of harmful emissions;
Non-disruptive transition to low-carbon energy systems;
Industry’s usage of the captured carbon dioxide;
Oil and Gas extra recovery from depleting reservoirs;
Economic competitiveness and prosperity;
Reduction of the Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and the Operational Expenditure (OPEX);
Attract new players and so more investments;
Enhance the competitiveness of a country’s manufacturing sector, especially subsectors;
Energy security;
Create direct and indirect employment;
Provide a basis for new industries and development of existing ones;
Promote a development of R&D agendas in other industries (by using a majority of the
state of the art technology);
Development of the scientific community by creating relations and partnerships between
industries and academia, in order to further develop new technologies and better
frameworks and methodologies.
67
Drivers that have the capability to foster CCS development and implementation on a certain
country are identified in the table 4.1, driven by different stakeholders. These benefits and drivers are
just some examples of results pointed on several agendas for the technological and industrial
development that can result from an investment in new ways and different techniques to create bases
for a solid development and solution of existent problems [20].
Table 4.2 – Drivers and Stakeholders involved in the storage process of a CCS project.
Drivers Stakeholders
Climate policy; Public in general;
CO2 emissions generators;
CO2 pipelines/vessels operators;
Geological storage site developers;
Local and national entities;
Climate regime administrators;
Insurance companies;
Financial underwriting companies.
Energy infrastructure;
CO2 regulatory stringency;
Projects’ location;
Subsurface property rights.
4.3.2. Risks Identification
Some risks are inherent to CCS development and implementation. It is a new technology, which
requires an additional effort to understand and detect possible future scenarios and risks. Identifying
them in three categories, as exposed in the table 4.2:
Table 4.3 – Systemic risks associated with CCS technological system.
Risks
Technical Regulatory/Economic
Carb
on
Cap
ture
an
d S
tora
ge
Monitoring activities are prone to cyber-attacks, which might affect the storage
security;
Cyber-attacks, which might compromise the
viability of the project;
Degradation of local air quality and water resources;
Subsea property owners;
Civil disruptions or Natural catastrophes; Strict regulations on the admission of
new technology and safety guidelines;
Damage for the human health and
ecosystems; New regulations and goals set for the emission of harming elements;
Water/ground contamination on the vicinities
of the injection well/reservoir; Community stress and economic instability;
Capture, Transport or Storage leakages; Slowing the rate of investment in more sustainable energy systems;
Dependence on monitoring techniques, as there are no other methods;
Economy indirect changes;
Control/maintenance of deep-water systems
highly dependent on sensors/remote
systems, which are still less accurate.
Financial viability.
68
4.3.3. Managing Risks and Recommendations
If stakeholders want to prevent risks, or at least want to control them, enabling a sustainable
growth, the most important aspect to have into account is the necessity of setting a constant high level
of research and development. This thought allows a positive contribute to different other sectors and a
strong preparation for the many coming challenges. Some useful recommendations to prevent and
manage risks may be drawn:
Establish a framework encouraging responsible operation and investment;
Balance stability and predictability with flexibility and adaptability to scientific information;
Development based on solid technical findings and develop a diverse portfolio of projects;
Provide ease of implementation for both regulators and industry, operating transparently;
Provide scientific and technical answers to key regulatory and legal concerns;
Employ harmonised monitoring, measurement and verification standards to enable cross-
comparison of technologies and be subject to comparative assessment.
Results made available to the public and allow public engagement and education;
Development of generalised site selection guidelines and GHG accounting protocols;
Improvement and standardisation of modelling techniques;
Development of necessary modifications to existing regulations;
Negotiation of specialised arrangements for long-term liabilities at a number of early sites;
Creation of financial policies to expand exploration to different locations;
A regulatory system to effectively govern the new changes in production, including
necessary permitting fees to support required regulatory activities, should be established,
with meticulous attention to the principles of sound science, data quality, transparency and
opportunity for local community and stakeholder participation;
Baseline conditions of some critical metrics should be measured and monitored to detect
any adverse changes resulting from development;
Since effective risk management at sites is feasible, companies should adhere to it;
Practices and strive to develop a strong safety culture, which includes sustained
commitment to worker safety, community health and environmental protection.
The ideal tool to manage the risks is a risk profile where one can see the evolution path and
identify the critical periods, as demonstrated in the figure 4.3:
Figure 4.3 – Leakage risk profile associated with the injection of carbon dioxide. (Source: [78])
69
4.4. Achievements Timeline
A technological system generally follows a trajectory path which may be split into three phases: I
– research; II – demonstration and III – commercialization. It begins in the research phase, where
concepts and components are studied and tested. After, it enters in the demonstration phase where
bigger investments are made to demonstrate the viability of real projects, pointing to a reduction of costs
and a maturation of technology. Finally, the technological system is considered as being in the
commercialization phase, being widely implemented and successfully operating.
Carbon Capture and Storage is following this type of trajectory, being actually in the
demonstration phase after several years of research and development leveraged by the O&G industry.
The main events that fostered CCS deployment in the past years are identified next and the
correspondent graphic of its evolution may be found in the figure 4.4 (next page). There, it is observed
three knowledge trajectories corresponding each one to the phases described, following the “S-Curve”
learning model. The first is split into two, representing the mentality shift, after the 2000’s, of the
exclusive Enhanced Oil Recovery purpose of CCS projects.
Ph
as
e I
1970 Use of CO2 for commercial EOR projects
1989 CCS technologies program at MIT
1991 Norwegian government imposed CO2 emissions taxes
Sleipner project plan
1996 Sleipner operation started
1997 Dakota Gasification Company agreed to send CO2 to Weyburn
1998 Weyburn plan
2000 Injection began at Weyburn
2001 RECOPOL project
UNFCC invited IPCC to prepare a special report about CCS
2003 Formation of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
2004 In Salah Project operation started
2005 Formation of CCSA in UK
Norwegian collaboration with UK
CCS integrated into the Chinese Natural Development Plan
2006 Coach Project (collaboration between China and EU)
2007 Cooperation agreement between Australia and China
Ph
as
e II
2008 Carbon Assessment Software developed by MIT
Clear-coal debut project in Germany
Post-Combustion project in China
Snhovit project started
2009 Formation of the Global CCS Institute
2012 Mongstad project in Algeria
70
Figure 4.4 – Qualitative evolution of the CCS industry, split into three phases: Research, Demonstration and Commercialization.
1970 1990 2000 2008 2015
Europe End of EOR mentality
1970 – 2008 PHASE I – Research Appearance of the first EOR projects using Carbon Dioxide. Research programs founded and encouraged by the emission taxes imposed by the Norwegian government. A mentality shift occurred in the new century, where CCS started to be seen as a mitigation strategy, supported by international organizations.
Time
CC
S K
now
led
ge
Norway Government imposed CO2 emission taxes.
Norway, Sleipner Start of the offshore platform project
2008 – 2020 PHASE II - Demonstration
Huge formation of research and development centres of CCS technologies,
where O&G companies invested part of their profits. Several agreements
between different countries were achieved. Due to the barrel price drop, the
investment in CCS was partially slowed down, but the objectives are still the
reduction of overall costs and unknowns.
Germany and China Debut projects Norway Snhovit offshore project
2020+ PHASE III – Commercialization Deployment of CCS industry, mitigating carbon dioxide impacts, investing also in renewable energy. More and bigger projects, affecting a wider range of CO2 sources.
Worldwide Formation of the
Global CCS Institute
Canada, Weyburn Start of the project, including 320km of pipeline transportation
Worldwide IPCC special report
Worldwide Collaboration between Norway and UK, China and EU, China and Australia
Norway Mongstad project
Worldwide Formation of the Clean Energy programme
Spain CIUDEN formation
Worldwide Transport of CO2 for commercial purposes.
United States
Sharon Ridge project, the
first EOR project using
CO2, capturing 1.3 million
tonnes annually.
United States CCS technologies program started at MIT
2020
71
4.5. Scenario Building for the CCS Industry
Carbon Capture and Storage knowledge and projects are strongly linked with the balance
between the Oil & Gas sector prosperity and environmental friendly systems and concerns. Hence, it is
of an extreme importance to project the future role, positioning and necessities that CCS industry may
assume, merging it with varied range of scenarios that may arise in the Oil & Gas sector, turning it as
much flexible as possible.
Few areas of economy are as volatile and dynamic as the oil and gas sector. The multiplicity of
factors that influence the directions of the petroleum production chain is huge, making the task of
preparing strategies and action plans a great challenge. Technological advances, supply and demand,
prices, business models, sustainability, demographic change, armed conflicts and geopolitical disputes;
these are just some of the variables that are likely to be on the horizon, year after year. And how does
one map the changes the market will hold for its actors over a more distant future, in a segment with
high production costs and long-term returns and in which long-term planning is essential? There is no
crystal ball for such a complex panorama. But there are scenarios: sets of hypotheses that, rather than
predicting the future, describe a range of possibilities. They are projections prepared based on data that,
studied today, can enable companies to make better decisions. The scenarios emphasize descriptions
of the external environment (instead of focusing on the internal context of companies). They employ
narrative techniques that instigate consideration of unexpected situations and challenge common sense,
but always maintaining plausibility. And, when well developed, they offer a guide that allows managers
to recognize the changes that are coming and prepare for them in advance. [79]
Accordingly to the Vision for 2040 [79], studied by Delloite, future base scenarios of the O&G
depend mainly on two variables/drivers: global political-economic environment and energy source
competitiveness. As so, one may draw the figure 4.5, illustrating energetic scenarios and their relative
position when different combination of those variables is assumed:
Figure 4.5 – Future plausible scenarios for the O&G industry. (Adapted from: [79])
Energy Source Competitiveness
Ge
op
oli
tica
l
Sta
biliz
ati
on
Ordered Growth
Conflictive Growth
Grey Green
Dominance of
Fossil Sources
Green
Globalization
Hegemony of
Traditional Oil Producers Decline of Oil
72
Scenario 1: Green Globalization
In this scenario, relative geopolitical stability favours economic growth and trade cooperation
between countries. With high demand, new alternative sources of energy, finally economically viable,
would add to the supply of conventional fuels. It is a scenario in which ordered growth in the geopolitical
axis and a green future in the axis of competitiveness between energy sources predominate.
The investment in the CCS industry, taking this scenario, is encouraged by the green requirement
of energy sources. As so, if the O&G industry want a share in the global energy matrix, they must
develop systems that change the intrinsic grey character of their fuels. And for that Carbon Capture and
Storage, as seen, is very well placed.
Scenario 2: Decline of Oil
Here, we would see a decline in the importance of oil in the global energy matrix. It would be a
world in which alternative energy sources would gain impetus, with a lower demand for oil due to lower
economic growth, combined with technological innovations and advances in alternative sources. The
preponderance on the geopolitical axis would be at the conflictive stagnation end, maintaining the green
hypothesis on the competitiveness of energy sources axis.
Once more, CCS implementation may be fostered by environmental requirements of energy
sources. Nevertheless, the demand of oil will suffer an implacable cut if the O&G industry doesn’t move
to a greener and fashionable level, which may stimulate the oil producers to adopt carbon mitigation
measures. However, if policies and regulations are not adopted there is the risk of a huge deceleration
in investments which may bring down the chances of CCS.
Scenario 3: Hegemony of traditional producers
Politically, this scenario is similar to that of number 2: political tensions in several corners of the
world would not decline and emerging countries would continue to stagnate, which would contribute to
a fall in global energy demand. The difference would be that the countries that today dominate the oil
and gas market would continue to exercise power, with oil firm and strong in the global energy matrix. It
would be a scenario in which the hypothesis of conflictive stagnation would combine with the grey
competitiveness of energy sources.
Hegemony of traditional oil producers allied with geopolitical confusion will not contribute to the
development of regulatory requirements in the energy world, thus not encouraging new investments in
technology development. Focus will be in a cheaper production, without carrying about environmental
problems.
Scenario 4: Dominance of fossil fuels
In the fourth scenario, the geopolitical axis would again tend toward ordered growth, with
competitiveness of energy sources leaning toward the grey end. Alternative energy vectors would not
be established as viable options and natural gas would not be commercialized through a global market.
With this, sources of fossil origin would multiply, which would combine with conventional oil and gas
exploration to supply growing demand from the emerging economies.
73
As the world would be dominated by fossil fuels, investment in CCS systems will be only possible
if governments take advantage of the geopolitical stabilization and launch together environmental
requirements to make this sources cleaner and less dangerous to the environment. Here, Enhanced Oil
Recovery projects may be often used for competitiveness purposes between the players, enhancing as
well the investment in CCS systems.
These identified and described scenarios are merely particular developments which may arise
from the actual conjuncture in the O&G industry. However, taking into consideration the present context
of growing global uncertainty in an energy transition era, no scenario may be determinant by itself. The
future of the energy sector might find a mix of two or more of these situations, where no specific scenario
will materialize itself completely and where uncertainty and systemic risks will play an ever growing role.
Actual Panorama
In order to better realize what the future might reserve, is essential to clearly understand where
is located the present energetic panorama in the referential shown in figure 4.5. In the horizontal axis,
energy source competitiveness, we are leaning to the left: grey energy sources. In the next years, it
seems that fossil fuels will continue to meet most of the world demand, particularly natural gas. Due to
improved efficiencies of the technology, such as cars, demand of oil will not grow exponentially anymore.
Instead, demand will stabilize or grow slowly, forcing moderation of the supply and levelling off the
growth of US shale oil. Alternatives that avoid oil consumption, such as electric cars, are becoming a
reality as initial investments become less expensive. However, current oil crisis puts some pressure on
renewable energy sources, which become less competitive as the oil price goes down.
The falling price of the oil barrel is explained from tensions between the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the US. OPEC is keeping high production levels in spite of the reduced
demand. The objective is to maintain the oil price in lower levels, which drives the US shale-oil boom to
a halt, since the production cost of it is much higher than the production cost of the most oriental
countries. Thus, in the geopolitical situation measured in the vertical axis we are closer to the conflictive
situation (bottom).
Balancing the two axis, one may see that nowadays we are moving towards the scenario 3 – a
hegemony of oil producers. Conflictive geopolitical situation moves the attention of the governments
from environmental problems to the economical field. In short term, they are more concerned about the
economic viability of the country thus decelerating the investment in renewables or in systems that
mitigate impact of the fossil fuels.
Matching with CCS
Based on the case studies elaborated along this thesis, one may conclude that technologies such
as Carbon Capture and Storage would benefit much more of an ordered growth, where there is space
and time to discuss and implement regulation. It was the case, for example, of Norway or EOR projects
(refer to case study 3 and 4).
Regarding the competitiveness between energy sources, the answer is not so easy. Dominance
of fossil sources (scenario 4) widens the opportunities to apply carbon mitigation technologies: there are
more producers and they may adopt those systems if stimulated by national/international regulation or
74
even for EOR purposes. It happened in the case study 3 and 4, where investments were made to
withdraw bigger quantities of oil from the reservoir or to avoid emission taxes.
On the other hand, if energy sources get greener (scenario 1), it means that the oil will lose a big
part of its share, thus losing capacity to invest in technology development. Moreover, the mentality and
the regulation in this panorama will be much tighter in environmental terms. Consequently, the traditional
oil producers that resist to this agitation will be forced to adopt procedures to mitigate the ecological
footprint.
One may create the figure 4.6, illustrating the interconnection, differences and possible bridges
between the different scenarios from the one that we are living now (scenario 3), relatively identifying
the possible importance of CCS for each one. Case studies are positioned in the most similar scenario
where they were developed, in a specie of micro-panorama conditions.
Figure 4.6 – CCS importance and case studies positioning in emergent scenarios of the Oil&Gas industry.
Case study 1 and 2 represent the overall current status of CCS development: demonstration
phase and pilot tests. In times of hegemony of traditional oil producers, as described by scenario 3, only
casual projects are going to arise, generally financed by the government. As it happened in this case
study, in the most cases these demonstration projects end without tangible results.
In the scenario 2, the demand of oil is very scarce and investments made by this sector will not
occur. Because of that, and observing that no case-study fits here, this scenario is perhaps the worst
for the CCS deployment.
Scenario 4 Scenario 1
Scenario 3 Scenario 2
Greener Sources
Ord
ere
d G
row
th a
nd
CC
S im
po
rta
nce
Path 2
Path 4
Path
3
Path
5
Case Study 4
Case Study 3
Case Study 1 Case Study 2
75
Case study 3, and the most part of the EOR projects, is located in conditions similar to scenario
4. The dominance of fossil fuel sources reinforces the competition amongst the producers, which
incentives them to increase the oil extraction rates, thus indirectly investing in CCS. Furthermore,
through the right policies, such as the ones observed in the case study 4, CCS may become an
obligation, walking towards a sustainable globalization but where the O&G doesn’t lose importance or
market share.
Case study 4 is the upmost sustainable scenario and where grey industries have to adopt CCS,
thus giving to it a significant importance. The Norwegian government imposed carbon dioxide taxes,
moving the Oil&Gas sector towards a greener thinking, investing in Carbon Capture and Storage
research and taking advantage of it (EOR).
The best scenario for the CCS deployment may be, thus, a mix between a world of green
globalization and dominance of fossil fuels. It is needed a sustainable mentality to achieve carbon
mitigation measures and procedures, but it is essential to have revenue from the O&G sector to develop
those technologies.
One may describe, in the table 4.4, the strategy to foster the mentality’s shift from one scenario
to another, following the paths identified in the figure. Evidently that this shift is very hard to make, as it
relies on a huge number of variables that may be out of the control of the governments and industries.
Table 4.4 – Strategies plans to change global scenarios, following the paths identified in the figure 4.6.
Path Strategy
1 Impose strictly regulation, encouraging the investment in greener energy sources and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. This cannot be made without stimulating global cooperation between countries and economies.
2
Impose the same regulation than in path 1, but without considering the ordered growth and conflict between entities and countries. This will change the mentality regarding energy sources, but it will not allow the global share of knowledge and resources, which may decline the demand of oil.
3 If international collaboration between economies and industries is stimulated, fossil fuels will dominate as much as they dominate nowadays, but with reinforced strongholds. More producers may arise and competitiveness may healthfully grow.
4 After achieving scenario 4, scenario 1 may be reached through regulation and investment towards greener energy sources, such as renewables.
5 With the decline of oil presented after the path 2, scenario 1 may be found with stronger and viable relations between countries holding different resources regarding the energy market. A green globalization, where different economies play different strategic roles, may thus arise.
4.5.1. Energy Transitions: Risks and Challenges
Dynamism and challenges of the macro-economic environment is always increasing without any
apparent signs of easing. Risk management has been used to rapidly evolve tools to control and prepare
the present and the future. There is a much larger interconnectivity between the different risks and
nowadays companies are starting to handle risk management discipline as an enabler of sustainable
growth and innovation. As so, risk management capabilities must be prioritized and focused on the
things that matter for the organization.
Legal, Emerging, Business, Regulatory and Operational risks are, according to [80], the top five
risks expected to dominate the energy sector in the next years. The first ones refer to the cost and loss
of income caused by legal uncertainty, such as regulatory actions, disputes for or against the company
76
or a failure to meet obligations. Emerging risks include uncertain, systemic and unexpected impacts
related to advancing science and technological innovation. Risks related to the possibility of inadequate
profits or even losses due to uncertainties, e.g. changes in consumption patterns or increased
competition, are contained in the business category. Regulatory risks are connected to restrictions,
licenses and laws applied by the government. Finally, operational risks are the ones resulting from
losses due to inadequate internal processes, people and systems or even from external events.
Even split and grouped into five categories, executives and boards may become lost in the risk
handling process, deeming the problem too large to be effectively managed. Hence, it is extremely
important to have solid frameworks, as the one proposed by the IRGC and used in this thesis, to provide
guidance in handling the risks even in situations of high complexity, uncertainty or ambiguity. In this way
is possible for the stakeholders to make a methodical approach, separating the credible and realistic
risks from the less relevant for their assets, even though recognizing that is not possible to anticipate or
prepare every conceivable risk.
Role of Industrial Policies
As seen, a technological trajectory is shaped by several external factors, ranging from social and
institutional to economic and environmental. The institutional part is particularly relevant due to its
transversal impact in the other categories, facilitating or restraining the use of new technologies such as
CCS. Hence, the role of the industrial policy and how it should be adapted to an uncertain and dynamic
period must be taken into consideration.
There is a great diversity of opinions regarding the role that industrial policies should perform.
The most adverse argument is that it is mainly created and developed by the strongest industries and
companies, thus distorting competition and exposing governments to their interests. However, this
argument is becoming out of context, as the international competition gained new silhouettes to
efficiently readapt to this era of energy transitions, characterized by extremely rapid innovations and
consequently falling prices, where knowledge and education is considered as a productive asset. In this
scenario, government interventions in the market may play a bigger and more positive role, facilitating
generation and spread of knowledge to all stakeholders.
In this context, the right industrial policy has to create and maintain strategic collaboration and
coordination between private and public sectors, enhancing the flow of information from the market to
the government, allowing it to take the most appropriate interventions [81]. The government has to adopt
a position of facilitator and coordinator in the knowledge generation, not being the driver as it was in
traditional industrial policies. Furthermore, the state should not adopt a policy where the firms are pre-
selected to be funded for knowledge investments. Instead, it should leave to the market forces to
naturally determine those firms. In short, the government should intervene in the market to facilitate risk
sharing and to establish relations among private entrepreneurs on different stages of the value chain
[82].
Taking the cases studies into the discussion, one may observe that Norwegian government was
the only one positively playing and encouraging CCS development. Thinking in environmental
improvements, it created a sustainable policy to reduce carbon emissions of oil related industries.
Further than requirements, the government provided solutions to achieve that goal. It created research
77
poles based on universities, strengthening the relation industry-university and industry-science. It
implemented a learn-by-doing mentality, leaving room to the gradual acquire of knowledge and results.
As it happened in the Compostilla Project (Spain), the government said no to the project’s kick-off due
to the lack of regulation. Regulation can only be effectively made when there is sufficient knowledge
and experience, which is not the case about Carbon Capture and Storage. When this happens,
governments prefer to say no to prevent any possible incident, which is a comprehensible position.
However, this will not allow the development and deployment of the technology, holding it in a permanent
“demonstration phase”.
Engineering Contribution
Value-added engineering may very positively contribute to handle not only the growing
uncertainty but also the regulation issues described above. Essentially, engineering can reduce barriers
and deliver a good quality product/system doing the following:
Cost reductions through process optimization: focusing on efficiency improvements,
addressing product quality needs and eliminating redundancies. The overall goal of
process optimization is to reduce the cost of production, operation and maintenance;
Revenue generation through debottlenecking: identifying where revenue stream is being
constrained by improper or less than optimal designs;
Strategic site planning: engineers can develop plans for retrofit applications and new
builds, thus minimizing the cost of contribution and ongoing maintenance;
Pre-engineering to achieve flexibility design: stakeholders need to take careful steps to
cut capital expenditures and operating costs in the actual panorama, but always with an
eye toward the investment return in the future.
By considering these value-added strategies, engineering firms are well positioned to provide
these services with better efficiency, streamlining and cost-saving innovations. Now is the time to work
more effectively to extract maximum productivity from existing facilities by building value, maintaining
flexibility and improving efficiency [83].
The problem here with CCS is that is not modelled to be a revenue generation system. Its
utilization brings costs and not revenues, even though it can avoid emission taxes with larger weight.
Thus, the problem is a little upside-down but the principles are the same. It is of extremely importance
to achieve flexible and sustainable halts to be prepared for different scenarios that may result from the
combination of industrial policies and inevitable uncertainty.
4.6. Opportunities for Portugal
The panorama of the Portuguese industry is very scarce compared with the necessities of the
Oil&Gas industry. Whereas the lack of resources in Portugal did not motivate investment in this sector,
the small dimension of the economy hinder as well the ability to invest in a capital intensive industry as
the O&G is.
There is now, however, an opportunity for Portugal to enlarge and gain importance in this sector.
This opportunity results from several factors that are contributing for the increasing importance that this
78
peripheral country may represent. The extension of the continental shelf, the predicted development of
the South Atlantic, mainly related with the exploration and production of hydrocarbons, and the
enlargement of the Panama Canal. Additionally, the industrial growth of the O&G sector in Brazil is being
followed by other Portuguese speaking oil-producing countries, as Angola and Mozambique are
example. All together bring prospects which must be characterized and framed into the Portuguese
industrial context and technological capacity.
Carbon Capture and Storage development, as mentioned, is very connected and dependent of
the knowledge of the O&G industry. Hence, Portugal must take the opportunity referred in the last
paragraph and progress in both industries at the same time. It is perhaps easier and more sustainable
to grow both together, assuring the most advanced technologies in a time that CCS cannot be decoupled
from the O&G as the mentality comes greener in terms of energy sources.
There is not much work produced in Portugal regarding CCS projects and opportunities. Even
universities are not very embraced in this mentality, preferring to focus almost all the resources in the
renewables. One collaboration between universities and entities was made to figure out the panorama
and capacities of Portugal in the present and in the future. The mapping of the Portuguese storage
capacity is represented in the figure 4.7:
Figure 4.7 – Location and description of potential storage areas and clusters for Portugal. Also showing the
economically viable pipeline routes from and between the main CO2 source regions. (Source: [84])
Different Portuguese stakeholders, from the industry to the academy, identify as main obstacle
the lack of knowledge, recommending financial incentives, a learn-by-doing strategy and the publication
of related information and studies already performed. They mentioned as well the huge impact that this
Cluster Setting Reservoirs Lithology Storage Capacity (Mt CO2)
S01 Offshore 5 Sandstones 1230
S02 Offshore 4 Sandstones,
conglomerates 870
S03 Offshore 5 Sandstones 2200
S04 Offshore 8 Sandstones,
conglomerates 1590
S05 Onshore 4 Sandstones,
conglomerates 340
S06 Offshore 4 Sandstones,
conglomerates 80
S07 Offshore 4 Limestones 410
S42 Offshore 2 Limestones and Sand
840
79
industry may represent in terms of jobs creation, especially for young engineers that are nowadays
leaving the country without any challenging opportunities arising in Portugal.
Nevertheless, the dimension of a CCS project in this early stage demands a huge investment and
human resources. Thus, some stakeholders recognize that Portugal has no chances to enter in this
industry, only on an international point of view. Collaborations and cooperation are needed to employ
this technology due to the reduced size of the Portuguese energetic sector.
4.7. Concluding Remarks
Carbon Capture and Storage has been witnessing a huge improvement in terms of investment
and credibility. In times of energy transitions is difficult to understand what will be the real role and
importance that CCS may play in the near future, in terms of carbon mitigation.
Over the past five to ten years, interest in CCS technologies has been increasing rapidly in both
public and private sector, as governments, industry, and scientific community grapple with how to
reconcile energy demand with the need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to mitigate
risks of climate change.
The assessment of transportation technologies, made in the second chapter, showed that this
stage of a Carbon Capture and Storage project benefited a lot from a learn-by-doing approach.
Nevertheless, and as it is revealed by the case study 1, there is a lot of phenomena to be analysed and
understood. Following the case study 2, was discussed the higher cost of offshore pipelines compared
to onshore facilities. The comparison between ships and sub-sea pipelines presented the potential
benefit from using ships for distances larger than 1000km between the coast and the offshore reservoir.
Case studies 3 and 4 reinforced the O&G significance in the development of CCS, through the
accumulated experience and similarities in storage mechanisms. Three main reasons fostered the
implementation in those situations: Enhanced Oil Recovery; Carbon excessive content or emission
taxes.
In this last chapter, different energetic scenarios were built changing the importance of the O&G
sector weight in the global energy matrix. The different case studies were framed into those global
scenarios and was concluded that a geopolitical stabilization, meaning an ordered growth, enhanced
systematically the investment in CCS. Case studies 3 and 4, where Statoil and EOR projects were
assessed, showed that this micro-climate of ordered growth and green globalization, without removing
completely the O&G importance, promoted the exploration and growth of this technological system.
However, seeing the challenging competition between technologies and environments one may
acknowledge that no scenario will be determinant by itself, but rather all of them will compete and coexist
with one other in different contexts. The analysis demonstrated as well the importance of flexibility in
engineering design to mitigate the growing uncertainty in global markets.
A successful innovation in CCS – which is a process towards a future where this technology is in
use as an important part of everyday industrial processes – still requires a lot of work to be done. Work
packages group all the milestones and progresses needed to be developed and improved, regarding
some specific matter. For the case of Carbon Capture and Storage projects, one may split the work to
be done in four packages:
80
Perceived benefits: improve knowledge about real benefits in terms of climate change,
CO2 reduction and economy;
Safety concerns: reduce doubts about toxicity, fails, technology and incompatibility for
renewable energy;
Scientific worries: gain confidence in the determination of storage limits and sites, costs
and in a learn-by-doing mentality;
Risk perception: address and clarify the risks for the ecosystems, human health, drivers
and stakeholders.
4.8. Limitations and Further Work
This thesis presents two main ways for gathering scientific knowledge: literature review and
experts’ foresights. After an extensive literature review on all the topics addressed, not only the carbon
dioxide transportation and sequestration but also the Oil&Gas industry and the linkage between them,
the information was confirmed and completed through a large spectrum of interviews.
Besides the constraint of time inherent to a master thesis elaboration, other barriers to this work
were the lack of knowledge and receptivity about this disruptive approach to mitigate climacteric issues.
The differences in stakeholders’ mentality and, sometimes, the contradictory information provided by
them made this thesis even more challenging. Case studies elaboration was particularly difficult due to
the little readiness of individuals and groups to engage in interdisciplinary thinking and sharing valuable
insights, which made it harder to extract concise and valuable data.
Regarding the risk analysis, one may feel that the number of people interviewed should be larger
and wider, as more information as always found as new interviews were made. Drivers and stakeholders
are not always easily identified, due to the huge number of CCS related industries. As a result, the risks
management and recommendations provided might be also limited by those less sized but perhaps no
less important industries.
In terms of future work, the chapters related with transportation and storage may be further
addressed and analysed, particularly as new experiments and projects are activated. New trajectories
may arise and reshape the future global scenario, making the foresights developed in this last chapter
out of date and context. As part of the OIPG, this work is a first step in gathering knowledge on the
aforementioned topics and must be continuously updated, especially considering uncertainty and fast
paced technological evolution that characterize the dynamic transition era that energy industries are
facing nowadays. In parallel, a less technical approach to this theme should be also trailed, giving more
attention to the role of industrial policies, public perception or even to the development of solid
regulation.
81
References
[1] International Energy Agency, “WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2013,” 2013.
[2] E. Santoyo-Castelazo, L. Stamford, and A. Azapagic, “Environmental Implications of Decarbonising Electricity Supply in Large Economies: The case of Mexico,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 85, pp. 272–291, 2014.
[3] OECD/IEA, “CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion,” 2012.
[4] IPCC, “Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage - Special Report,” 2007.
[5] International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2012,” 2012.
[6] CCSA, “Carbon Capture and Storage - Enabling a Low Carbon World,” pp. 1–20, 2009.
[7] A. S. Brouwer, M. Van Den Broek, A. Seebregts, and A. P. C. Faaij, “The flexibility requirements for power plants with CCS in a future energy system with a large share of intermittent renewable energy sources,” Energy Procedia, vol. 37, pp. 2657–2664, 2013.
[8] European Climate Foundation, “Roadmap 2050 - A Practical Guide to a Prosperous, Low-Carbon Europe,” 2010.
[9] P. Stevens, “The ‘Shale Gas Revolution’ : Developments and Changes,” Chatham House Briefing Paper, no. August, p. 12, 2012.
[10] H. Gerbelová, a. André, S. Casimiro, M. Melo, and P. Ferrão, “Assessment of carbon capture and storage opportunities: Portuguese case study,” Energy Procedia, vol. 4, no. 2011, pp. 6109–6116, 2011.
[11] J. Røyrvik, M. Schei Olsen, and T. M. B. Aasen, “Political rationality and CCS discourse,” Energy Procedia, vol. 23, no. 1876, pp. 284–295, 2012.
[12] OIPG, “The International Observatory Global Policies for the Sustainable Exploration of Atlantic,” 2014.
[13] IBM, “Meeting the challenges of today’s oil and gas exploration and production industry.,” On Demand Business - IBM, no. G510–3882–00, p. 8, 2004.
[14] A. T. Furtado, “Pré-sal , Desenvolvimento Industrial e Inovação Objetivo,” pp. 79–100.
[15] J. Koornneef, A. Ramírez, W. Turkenburg, and A. Faaij, “The environmental impact and risk assessment of CO2 capture, transport and storage - an evaluation of the knowledge base using the DPSIR framework,” Energy Procedia, vol. 4, pp. 2293–2300, 2011.
[16] “EC, Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the geological storage of carbon dioxide,” Office Journal of the European Union, no. June 2006, pp. 114–135, 2009.
[17] GLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE, “Large-Scale CCS Projects – Definitions.” [Online]. Available: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects-definitions. [Accessed: 12-May-2015].
[18] CCSA, “What is CCS? Capture.” [Online]. Available: http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/capture/. [Accessed: 10-Apr-2015].
82
[19] Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, “CO2 Capture - Does It Work?” 2009.
[20] GLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE, “CO2 Capture Technologies - Technology Options for CO2 Capture,” no. January, 2012.
[21] M. Gupta, I. Coyle, and K. Thambimuthu, “CO2 Capture Technologies and Opportunities in Canada,” Strawman Document for CO2 capture and Storage (CC&S) Technology Roadmap, no. September, pp. 1–15, 2003.
[22] International Energy Agency, “Technology roadmap - Carbon capture and Storage,” p. 59, 2013.
[23] CCSA, “What is CCS? Transport.” [Online]. Available: http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/transport/. [Accessed: 13-Apr-2015].
[24] UKCCS Research Centre, “CCS - Cross Cutting Issues - Transport.” [Online]. Available: https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/about/what-ccs/cross-cutting-issues/transport. [Accessed: 13-Apr-2015].
[25] A. Cosham and R. J. Eiber, “Fracture propagation in CO2 pipelines,” Journal of Pipeline Engineering, pp. 147–158, 2007.
[26] UKCCS Research Centre, “What is CCS Storage?” [Online]. Available: https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/about/what-ccs/storage. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2015].
[27] C. Fu and T. Gundersen, “Carbon Capture and Storage in the Power Industry: Challenges and Opportunities,” Energy Procedia, vol. 16, pp. 1806–1812, 2012.
[28] J. P. Barry, K. R. Buck, C. F. Lovera, L. Kuhnz, P. J. Whaling, E. T. Peltzer, P. Walz, and P. G. Brewer, “Effects of direct ocean CO2 injection on deep-sea meiofauna,” Journal of Oceanography, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 759–766, 2004.
[29] CCSA, “What is CCS? Storage.” [Online]. Available: http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/storage/. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2015].
[30] M. E. Porter, “Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance,” New York: The Free Press, 1985.
[31] C. O. H. Wolf, “The Petroleum Sector Value chain,” The World Bank Research Observer, no. June 2009, pp. 1–33, 2010.
[32] S. J. Gomes and B. F. Alves, Universo da Indústria Petrolífera: Da pesquisa à refinação. Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2007.
[33] F. Jahn, M. Cook, and M. Graham, Hydrocarbon Exploration & Production. Elsevier, 2008.
[34] L. Vandebroek and J. Berghmans, “Safety aspects of the use of LNG for marine propulsion,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 45, pp. 21–26, 2012.
[35] A. Tugnoli, N. Paltrinieri, G. Landucci, and V. Cozzani, “LNG regasification terminals: Comparing the inherent safety performance of innovative technologies,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 19, pp. 391–396, 2010.
[36] N. Rosenberg, Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
83
[37] C. Freeman and C. Perez, Structural crisis of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. Pinter, London, 1988.
[38] A. De Oliveira, C. G. Ribeiro, and A. T. Furtado, “Competition between technological systems in pre-salt fields,” IAMOT, 2014.
[39] R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter, “In search of a useful theory of innovations,” Research Policy, 1977.
[40] OECD, “The Oslo Manual: The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities,” Paris, 1992.
[41] G. Dosi, “The nature of the innovative process,” in Technical change and economic theory, London, Pinter, 1982, pp. 94–113.
[42] R. de Neufville and S. Stefan, Flexibility in Engineering Design. The MIT Press, 2011.
[43] J. K. Creswell, Qualitative inquiry and research design; choosing among five approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2007.
[44] H. Simons, Case study research in practice. Los Angeles: Sage, 2009.
[45] M. Bassey, Case study research in educational settings. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 1999.
[46] R. E. Stake, The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995.
[47] N. J. Petty, O. P. Thomson, and G. Stew, “Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 2: Introducing qualitative research methodologies and methods,” Manual Therapy, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 378–384, 2012.
[48] K. M. Eisenhardt, “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 532–550, 1989.
[49] J. Pfeffer, Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman, 1982.
[50] I. Miles, “The development of technology foresight: A review,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 77, no. 9, pp. 1448–1456, 2010.
[51] IRGC, “Risk Governance Deficits: Analysis, illustration and recommendations,” pp. 1–24, 2010.
[52] IRGC, “Risk governance: Towards an integrative approach,” International Risk Governance Council, pp. 1–157, 2005.
[53] IRGC, “An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework,” International Risk Governance Council, pp. 1–24, 2008.
[54] OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies, OECD (2011), Future Global Shocks: Improving Risk Governance. 2011.
[55] CO2 Europipe, “Towards a transport infrastructure for large-scale CCS in Europe Developing a European CO2 transport infrastructure,” Seventh Framework Programme, pp. 1–65, 2009.
[56] J. Morbee, J. Serpa, and E. Tzimas, “The evolution of the extent and the investment requirements of a trans-European CO2 transport network,” JRC Scientific an Technical Reports, 2010.
84
[57] R. Doctor, A. Palmer, D. Coleman, J. Davison, C. Hendriks, O. Kaarstad, and M. Ozaki, “Transport of CO2,” in Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage, IPCC, 2005.
[58] Energy Institute, “Good plant design and operation for onshore carbon capture installations and onshore pipelines,” p. 137, 2010.
[59] Det Norske Veritas, RECOMMENDED PRACTICE - Design and Operation of CO2 Pipelines, no. April. 2010.
[60] M. Mohitpour, H. Golshan, and A. Murray, Pipeline Design & Construction: A Practical Approach. ASME Press, New York, 2007.
[61] Canadian National Energy Board, PIPELINE REGULATION IN CANADA : A Guide for Landowners and the Public. 2010.
[62] R. Skagestad, N. Eldrup, H. Richard, S. Belfroid, A. Mathisen, A. Lach, H. A. Haugen, R. Skagestad, N. Eldrup, H. Ri-, S. Belfroid, and A. Mathi-, “Ship transport of CO2,” 2014.
[63] Global-CCS-Institute, “Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS,” 2012.
[64] Y. Seo, D. Chang, J. Y. Jung, C. Huh, and S. G. Kang, “Economic evaluation of ship-based CCS with availability,” Energy Procedia, vol. 37, pp. 2511–2518, 2013.
[65] Lloyd’s List Intelligence, “Shipping just got smarter,” 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.lloydslistintelligence.com/llint/index.htm.
[66] Zero Emission Platform, “The Costs of CO2 Transport Post-demonstration CCS in the EU,” 2010.
[67] N. Sacuta and K. Anderson, “Creating core CCS messages: Focus Group Testing and Peer Review of Questions and Answers from the IEAGHG Weyburn-midale CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project,” Energy Procedia, vol. 63, pp. 7061–7069, 2014.
[68] GHG and IEA, Weyburn CO2 monitoring & storage project. Summary report 2000-2004. 2004.
[69] APEC Energy Working Group Project EWG 03 / 2004T, “Building Capacity for CO2 Capture and Storage in the APEC Region - A Training Manual for Policy Makers and Practitioners,” no. March, 2005.
[70] M. Celia, B. Gunter, J. Ennis, and E. Lindeberg, Underground geological storage, vol. chapter 5. 2005.
[71] S. Bachu, “Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change,” Environmental Geology, vol. 44, pp. 277–289, 2003.
[72] J. B. Bradshaw, E. Bradshaw, G. Allinson, A. J. Rigg, V. Nguyen, and A. Spencer, “The potential for geological sequestration of CO2 in Australia: preliminary findings and implications to new gas field development,” Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Journal, vol. 42, pp. 24–46, 2002.
[73] C. M. Gibson-Poole, “Site Characterisation for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide: Examples of Potential Sites from Northwest Australia,” The University of Adelaide, 2008.
[74] CO2CRC, “Researching Carbon Capture & Storage - Storing CO2,” p. 2, 2012.
85
[75] S. E. Gasda, S. Bachu, and M. Celia, “The potential for CO2 leakage from storage sites in geological media: analysis of well distribution in mature sedimentary basins,” Environmental Geology, pp. 707–720, 2004.
[76] J. J. Heinrich, H. J. Herzog, and D. M. Reiner, “Environmental Assessment of Geological Storage of CO2,” in Second National Conference on Carbon Sequestration.
[77] NETL, “NETL - Carbon Capture and Storage Projects List 2015,” 2015.
[78] S. A. Benson, Geological Storage of CO2: Analogues and Risk Management. Pittsburgh PA, 2007.
[79] Delloite, “Vision 2040 - Global Scenarios for the Oil and Gas Industry: Understanding the next decades.”
[80] Accenture, “Risk management for an era of greater uncertainty,” 2013.
[81] D. Rodrik, “Normalizing Industrial Policy,” pp. 1–50, 2008.
[82] M. Yulek, Economic Planning and Industrial Policy in the Globalizing Economy: Concepts, Experience and Prospects. Springers, 2013.
[83] T. Hutchinson and P. Dickey, “Value-Added Engineering: A Solution to a Down Market,” Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2015.
[84] FCT, CGE, LNEG, Bellona, and REN, “CCS in Portugal - a bridge to a low carbon economy,” 2012.
a
Annex A: Clusters for an effective Risk Assessment and Managing
(Source: [51])
Cluster A: Assessing Risks
b
Cluster B: Managing Risks
c
Annex B: Pipeline Design Flow Diagram
Source: [58]
d
Annex C: Carbon Dioxide Phase Diagram
(Source: www.earthscience.com)
e
Annex D: List of interviewed specialists
Interviewed Person Function Company/Institution URL
Richard De Neufville Professor Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT)
https://esd.mit.edu/Faculty_Pages
/deneufville/deneufville.htm
Joaquim Neto Filipe CEO ProjectoDetalhe Group http://www.projectodetalhe.com/in
dex.php/grupo-projecto-detalhe-3/
Jorge Silva Chief Engineer ProjectoDetalhe Group https://pt.linkedin.com/pub/jorge-
gomes-da-silva/28/904/8
Lionel Loubeau New Markets
Responsible
Fundación Ciudad de la
Energía (CIUDEN) http://ciuden.es/index.php/en/
Marcelo Vindeirinho Claims Adjuster American Insurance
Group (AIG) http://www.aig.com.pt/
Ramiro Neves Professor Tecnico Lisbon, IST https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/ho
mepage/ist11787
António Valle Director WW, Maritime Works
Consultant
http://www.appconsultores.org.pt/
associados/detalhes.php?id=152
Luís Medeiros Board Adviser ProjectoDetalhe Group http://www.projectodetalhe.com
f
Annex E: Interviews Transcript
In this annex follows a transcript of some of the most relevant interviews for the context of this
thesis.
Interviewee: Richard de Neufville, Engineer
Occupation: Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
This interview was made to better understand the notion and requirements of a “Flexibility in
Engineering Design” approach to different projects, especially for Carbon Capture and Storage. Richard
de Neufville has strong ideas about the flexibility concept, which he believes is starting to be fundamental
for the sustainability of every product or project.
According to his experience throughout the past years, the biggest challenge is changing
perspectives of stakeholders. They think that the way they are doing is the optimal, because it always
gave profit without relevant problems. As so, they are very afraid of a change that, in their point of view,
might compromise results.
Richard de Neufville identifies five main problems which may arise during the implementation of
flexibility in engineering design on a certain product:
Engineers neither practised nor trained to consider uncertainties in non-technical areas;
Engineering models often so detailed that there is no time to simulate many scenarios;
Everything is uncertain? What should be the focus?
What options to develop and compare?
Multi-criteria evaluation. Many criteria for choice of concepts might difficult the results.
When asked about how may be analysed a more general case, instead of a specific product or
project, such as the sustainability of the energy sector, Richard de Neufville commented that should be
adopted a learn-by-doing methodology. Establishing short-time strategies and react to setbacks, like in
a chess game, is the best way to make things happen. Particularly for the CCS industry, they should
focus on real things and not being always in the research field. Build a project and see the difficulties
and results (basically, a learn-by-doing approach) is the best way to scale-up the industry.
g
Interviewee: Jorge Silva, Engineer
Occupation: Chief Engineer at Projecto.Detalhe
Projecto.Detalhe was founded in 2000 and specializes in engineering and project management.
Is based in Quinta da Beloura (Sintra), which is near Lisbon. After consolidation in the national market,
Projecto.Detalhe focused on growth in new markets. Currently, under the strategy of internationalization,
has associate companies in Angola, Mozambique, Brazil, Cape Verde and Macau. Projecto.Detalhe is
also involved in Guinea, Swaziland, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The focus is on projects EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) in the sectors of Oil
& Gas, Energy, Environment, Infrastructures, Mining and Metallurgy and, finally, the Sea. Environment,
health and safety and regular activities of social responsibility are part of the sustainable development
of Projecto.Detalhe.
Jorge Silva believes that Projecto.Detalhe has capacity to face and resist to changes in paradigms
of the energy sector. They are investing in fresh graduate engineers to be more flexible and with new
ideas for the future, allying that to knowledge of more experienced employees.
Regarding Carbon Capture and Storage, especially transportation by pipelines, he recognizes the
lack of data of the phenomena behind the carbon dioxide behaviour. However, Jorge Silva thinks that
there is no reason to be much more concerned about CO2 than other fluids that engineers of
Projecto.Detalhe are used to deal with. As so, and defending that the excellence only may be achieved
with years of experience, he defends a more flexible regulatory regime.
Interviewee: António Valle, Engineer
Occupation: Director at WW – Maritime Consultancy SA
WW is a consultancy company of engineering specialized in the fields of Maritime Hydraulics,
Port and Shore Engineering. It develops its activity since 1981 in Portugal, including the Azores and
Madeira islands. Abroad, they are represented in Angola, Cape Verde, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Malta
and Brazil.
António Valle is a Civil Engineer very experienced in maritime works, especially regarding coastal
issues. He defends that in the near future the shore will become saturated and offshore will start to play
a major role. There is plenty of space to explore in the sea, above and below the surface. That space
may be both used by the renewable energy sector (offshore wind farms) or the Oil&Gas (sub-sea
factories). However, António Valle recognizes the still embryonic stage of renewable energy, which are
not experiencing enough investment and effort to scale-up definitively.
When asked about the future of Carbon Capture and Storage, António Valle commented that the
major stakeholder responsible to improve CCS acceptance and deployment must be the O&G industry.
Only they have data that may be used, through appropriate knowledge transfer tools, to foster the
implementation of these technologies without beginning from scratch. However, he points out as biggest
barrier the substantial investments and costs, which should be balanced and stimulated through carbon
emissions penalties or benefits.
h
Interviewee: Ramiro Neves, Engineer
Occupation: Professor at IST – Scientific Area of Environment and Energy, Mechanical Department
Ramiro Neves dedicated the last years to the study of Advanced Environmental Modelling. He
teaches environmental modelling following an interdisciplinary approach, putting into evidence the
importance of the physical processes for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, both directly through the
transport processes and indirectly through their implications on the energy cycle and on the differential
transport of particulate and dissolved matter.
This professor indicates as major drivers of modelling progression in the last decade the growing
necessity of forecast the future. The model is the reality and, sometimes, the data directly taken from
the several instruments is not. Modelling the past allows the identification of future problems and
consequent generation of solutions, supporting train and education. Is important to monitor large events
and, afterwards, downscale the data and results for the benefit of several industries, such as CCS. This
modelling reality should be fostered through public divulgation, while possible, of data and results
collected by different entities.
Interviewee: Marcelo Vindeirinho, Manager
Occupation: Claims Adjuster at American Insurance Group (AIG)
Marcelo Vindeirinho is the Manager of sinister related with the Maritime and Marine Industry. He
is in charge of several processes regarding oil platforms and ships.
He assumes the contribution that an insurance company may give to the development of an
industry, covering some controlled risks that may degenerate in serious accidents and compromise the
whole sector. Regarding the O&G industry, he referred that is always difficult to decide whether the fault
is on the company and out of the agreed terms of the contract. This industry has a lot of powerful
interests and tricks, making even more difficult the analysis and the decision of covering or not the
damages.
When asked about Carbon Capture and Storage, Marcelo Vindeirinho is not so confident in future
agreements because of the lack of knowledge and experience. The insurance company has to follow
strict regulations, based on strong and consolidated knowledge, to define the different terms of the
contract and to have a controlled management of the unknown risk. Thus, he identifies as first priority
the construction of regulatory policies to foster the development and attracting insurance companies to
join in.
i
Interviewee: Lionel Loubeau, Engineer
Occupation: New Markets Responsible at Fundación Ciudad de la Energía (CIUDEN)
The Foundation was established in 2006, under the authority of the Government of Spain, to
implement R&D&I energy and environment programmes, and contribute to the economic development
in El Bierzo region. It is run by a board of governors with the participation of the ministries related to
Energy, Science and Environment. The energy model raises questions about the future and forces us
to do some hard thinking in order to achieve the future we desire. CIUDEN wants to be part of this
process. Open to the exchange of ideas, cooperation and innovation, with the participation of citizens,
enterprises, technology and thinking.
Lionel Loubeau defends the role of foundations as CIUDEN in the development of Carbon
Capture and Storage and related industries. He assumes that CCS is far from being generally accepted
and used, identifying as major challenges the changes in paradigms. Carbon Capture and Storage faces
the carbon dioxide in a different perspective of any other technology. Instead of reducing or annulling
completely carbon emissions, by improving the efficiency of the sources or investing in renewables,
CCS manages and stores the carbon emitted. In this way we are not mitigating the emissions but only
the damages that they may cause. It is not the smartest and cleanest way to lead with the problem, but
is not cleaver as well to waste all the fossil fuels potential. The energy matrix should have as much
entries (sources) as possible, without forgetting the damages and costs of each one.
Data and results made available to the public, allowing their engagement and education; flexible
regulations and risks frameworks; financial policies and harmonised monitoring, measurement and
verification standards are the key issues that, in his opinion, should be addressed to foster the
implementation of this technological system.