Linde Briefing for USEA Update on DOE Post-Combustion Capture project & CCUS activities

January 2013

04/02/2013 2

Linde Overview & Focus on CCUS Pathways

PCC Technology & Update on DOE Project

Current CCUS Activities & Focus Areas

04/02/2013 3

Leveraging Synergies

3

The Linde Group Overview

1879

~$20 billion

~62,000

>100

Linde Engineering

Technology-focused Air Separation

Global #1

Hydrogen/Syn Gas

Global #2

Olefins

Global #2

Natural Gas

Global #3

HyCO Tonnage Plants

>70 plants

ASU Tonnage Plants

>300 plants

ECOVAR Std Plants

>1,000 plants

Linde Gas - Tonnage

World-class operations

Founded

Sales

Employees

Countries

CO2 Plants

>100 plants

04/02/2013 4

Growth opportunities Product portfolio serving mega trends

Leveraging Gases & Engineering business synergies

Clean energy Healthcare Growth markets

04/02/2013 5

Linde pursuing all three CCS pathways Technology Development & Solution Offering

Technology Process

Pre-combustion

Oxyfuel

Post-combustion

Linde Portfolio

Feedstock CO2

Gasifier ASU Gas

cleaning (Rectisol)

CO Shift CO2

purification & compression

CO2

Boiler ASU DeNOx DeSOx CO2

purification & compression

Feedstock

CO2

Boiler DeNOx DeSOx CO2

capture & compression

Feedstock

04/02/2013 6

Linde Overview & Focus on CCUS Pathways

PCC Technology & Update on DOE Project

Current CCUS Activities & Focus Areas

Fußzeile 7

Overall Objective

— Demonstrate Linde-BASF post combustion capture technology by incorporating BASF’s amine-based solvent process in a 1 MWel slipstream pilot plant and achieving at least 90% capture from a coal-derived flue gas while demonstrating significant progress toward achievement of DOE target of less than 35% increase in levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)

Specific Objectives

— Complete a techno-economic assessment of a 550 MWel power plant incorporating the Linde-BASF post-combustion CO2 capture technology to illustrate the benefits

— Design, build and operate the 1MWel pilot plant at a coal-fired power plant host site providing the flue gas as a slipstream

— Implement parametric tests to demonstrate the achievement of target performance using data analysis

— Implement long duration tests to demonstrate solvent stability and obtain critical data for scale-up and commercial application

Project Objectives

Fußzeile 8

DE-FE0007453 Project Participants

Partner/

Organization

Lead contact(s) Key Role(s)

DOE-NETL Andrew P. Jones, Project Manager

-Funding & Sponsorship

Linde LLC Krish Krishnamurthy, PI Stevan Jovanovic, Technical Lead

-Prime contract -Overall program management -Operations and testing

BASF Iven Clausen (BASF SE) Sean Rigby (BASF Corp)

-OASE® blue technology owner -Basic design -Solvent supply and analysis

EPRI Richard Rhudy -Techno-economics review -Independent validation of test analysis and results

Southern Co./NCCC

Frank Morton Michael England

-NCCC Host site (Wilsonville, AL) -Infrastructure and utilities for pilot plant build and operations

Linde Engineering, Dresden

Torsten Stoffregen Harald Kober

-Basic engineering -Support for commissioning -Operations and testing

SFPC (Linde Eng)

Lazar Kogan Keith Christian

-Detailed engineering -Procurement and installation

2/4/2013 Fußzeile 9

Project schedule by budget period and task

Task # TITLE

1 Program Management

Budget Period 1

2 Techno-Economic Evaluation

3 Pilot plant optimization and basic design

4 Pilot plant system design and engineering

5 Pilot plant cost and safety analysis

Go - No GoDECISION

Budget Period 2

6 Supply of plant equipment and materials

7 Plant construction and commissioning

Mechanical completion of pilot plant

Budget Period 3

8 Start-up and initial operation

9 Parametric testing

10 Long duration continuous operation

11 Final economic analysis and commercialization plan

Project Closeout

2012 2013 2014 2015 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q4 Q4 Q4

Current status

Fußzeile 10

Project progress and accomplishments by task (Budget Period 1)

Task# Task Description Key Objectives Accomplishments

1 Program Management

Complete project management plan and implement to agreed cost and schedule.

- Project kick-off meeting held

- Updated project management plan completed

2 Techno-economic evaluation

Complete techno-economic analysis on a 550 MWe coal-fired power plant incorporating Linde-BASF PCC technology.

-Techno-economic assessment completed and presented to DOE-NETL

- Benefits of technology demonstrated

3 Pilot plant optimization and basic design

Define pilot plant design basis and the key features incorporated. Complete basic design and engineering.

-Design basis document completed and pilot plant features selected.

- Basic design and engineering completed.

4 Pilot plant design and engineering

Complete detailed design and engineering of the pilot plant.

- Detailed engineering nearing completion (90% model)

5 Pilot plant cost and safety analysis

Complete preliminary environment, health and safety assessment for the pilot plant

- NEPA document completed with NCCC and DOE-NETL approval obtained

-Preliminary EH&S topical report completed

- Vendor packages developed and firm cost estimates obtained

11 11

Linde-BASF experience in large scale carbon capture CO2 capture in NG processing: Re-injection Project - Hammerfest

700,000 tpa CO2 capture and re-injection (part of world scale LNG project, Snøhvit, Norway)

World’s first industrial project to deliver CO2 separated onshore from the well-stream back offshore for re-injection into a reservoir

— Partnership with StatoilHydro Petroleum

— Melkoya island near the town of Hammerfest, Norway

—CO2 sequestration and re-injection integral part of the Hammerfest LNG project. Linde performed design, EPC and commissioning

—One dedicated well for CO2 storage in a sandstone formation sealed by shale cap.

— Re-injection started in April 2008

— BASF’s OASE® purple process used in CO2 capture

Fußzeile 12

NG/LNG Flue gas

Pressure 50 – 100 bars 1 bara

CO2 partial pressure 1 – 40 bars 30 – 150 mbars

Flowrate up to 60 mio scf/hr up to 120 mio scf/hr

Gas composition CH4, C2H6, …, CO2, H2S, COS, CxHy,S, H2O N2, O2, H2O, CO2, (SOx) NOx

Treated gas specification 50 ppm – 2 % CO2

S < 4 – 10 ppm

CO2 removal rate (90 %) low amine emissions

Energy efficiency

not a key issue of highest priority η 7-10% points

large volume flows @ low pressure solvent stability

overall power plant efficiency losses emissions of solvent

Post combustion CO2 capture: Challenges compared to CO2 removal in NG/LNG plants

Fußzeile 13

BASF OASE® blue Technology Development Designed for PCC Applications

0102030405060708090

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 30 3 1 3 2 3 3 34 35 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 40 4 1 4 2 4 3 44 45 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 50 5 1 5 2 5 3 54 55 5 6 5 7 5 8 59 60 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 65 6 6 6 7 6 8 69 70 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 75 7 6 7 7 7 8 79 80 8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 85 8 6 8 7 8 8 89 90 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 95 9 6 9 7 9 8 99 1 0 0 10 1 10 2 1 03 1 0 4 1 0 5 10 6 1 07 1 08 1 0 9 1 1 0 11 1 11 2 1 13 1 1 4 1 1 5 11 6 11 7 1 18 1 19 1 2 0 12 1 12 2 1 23 1 2 4 1 2 5 12 6 12 7 1 28 1 29 1 3 0 13 1 13 2 1 33 1 3 4 1 3 5 13 6 13 7 1 38 1 39 1 4 0 14 1 1 42 1 43 1 4 4 1 4 5 14 6 14 7 1 48 1 4 9 1 5 0 15 1 1 52 1 53 1 5 4 1 5 5 15 6 15 7 1 58 1 5 9 1 6 0 16 1 1 62 1 63 1 6 4 1 6 5 16 6

screened solvents

cycl

ic c

apac

ity /

Nm3 /t

MEA

Equilibria Kinetics

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Loading

Abso

rptio

n ra

te

MEAtested solvent

Stability

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600time [h]

cont

ent o

f am

ine

tested solvents

MEA

Fundamental Lab Scale R&D: Advanced Solvents Screening, Development, Optimization

0.45 MWe PCC Pilot, Niederaussem, Germany: Preliminary Process Optimization

BASF Miniplant, Ludwigshafen, Germany: Solvent Performance Verification

Fußzeile 14

Niederaussem* pilot plant key results

>90% carbon capture rate achieved >20% improvement in specific energy compared to MEA New BASF solvent is very stable compared to MEA Acknowledgement: * Pilot project partner RWE

duration of operation

tota

l con

tent

of c

arbo

nic

acid

sMEA

New BASF Development

duration of operation

tota

l con

tent

of c

arbo

xilic

aci

ds

~ 5,000 hrs

MEA OASE® blue

OASE® blue

Fußzeile 15

Solutions for Large Scale PCC Plant (1100 Mwel Power) Design challenges

Lower number of trains results in bigger size of components, e.g.

– Absorption column: diameter ca.18 m, height ca. 75 m on site fabrication required

– Pipes ducts and valves: diameters up to 7 meters

– Plot : ca. 100 m x 260 m

Compressor section two lines per train

flexible turn down operation

Optimizing CAPEX by reduced number of trains to handle 18,000 tpd CO2 - 2 process trains selected - reduced plot space

Fußzeile 16 Fußzeile 16

Concepts for a Large Scale PCC Plant Key elements of plant costs

Main challenges

— Large equipment size requires new concepts

— Required plot area is very significant

— Alternative materials need to be assessed

— New equipment arrangements needed

— FIeld fabrication

— Large pipe and duct

Linde studies to address challenges

— Scaling to a very large single train

— Optimize equipment arrangement (flue gas blower, pre-cooler, absorption columns sump etc)

— Develop new column construction materials

— Optimize machinery options

Total plant cost distribution

Engineering and supervision

Equipment incl. columns (w/o blowers & compressors)

Blowers & compressors

Bulk Material

Civil

Construction

Fußzeile 17

Simplified process flow diagram of the 1MWe pilot plant

Stream S1 S2 S3

Feed gas CO2 Lean CO2 Rich

Temperature F 123.8 114.1 104.0

Pressure psia 14.9 13.8 47.9

H2O vol% 13.30 9.49 2.31

CO2 vol% 12.14 1.45 97.67

CO vol% 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2 vol% 69.36 82.85 0.01

O2 vol% 5.20 6.21 0.00

Flow rate (total) mscf/hr 217.4 182.0 24.3

Flow rate (total) lb/hr 16,517 13,209 2,782

CO2 Recovered TPD 30.0

Reco

vere

d CO

2

Deso

rber

FLUE GAS FEED downstream of DCC & Blower

Abso

rber

Condenser

Filter*

Reboiler LP STEAM

CO2-Lean stream

Make-up Water

Interstagecooler

Solvent Tank

Make Up

Solvent*

Condensate

FLUE GAS RETURN

Make-up

Water

Cooling Water In

CW

CW

CW

CW

CW

To C

W H

X

From

CW

HX

Cooling Water OutLi

nde

PILO

T PL

ANT

–N

CCC/

Sout

hern

PO

WER

PLA

NT

Inte

rfac

e w

ith T

ie In

Poi

nts

El. Power Supply

Drain*

S1 S2 S3

Blower

Condensing Cooler

Reco

vere

d CO

2

Deso

rber

FLUE GAS FEED downstream of DCC & Blower

Abso

rber

Condenser

Filter*

Reboiler LP STEAM

CO2-Lean stream

Make-up Water

Interstagecooler

Solvent Tank

Make Up

Solvent*

Condensate

FLUE GAS RETURN

Make-up

Water

Cooling Water In

CW

CW

CW

CW

CW

To C

W H

X

From

CW

HX

Cooling Water OutLi

nde

PILO

T PL

ANT

–N

CCC/

Sout

hern

PO

WER

PLA

NT

Inte

rfac

e w

ith T

ie In

Poi

nts

El. Power Supply

Drain*

S1 S2 S3

Blower

Condensing Cooler

LP Steam lb/hr 3,600El. Power kW 190Cooling Water GPM 570Makeup water GPM 0.3

Utilities for 30_TPD Pilot Plant

Fußzeile 18 Fußzeile 18

Linde-BASF advanced PCC plant design*

Reco

vere

d CO

2

Deso

rber

FLUE GAS FEED downstream of DCC & Blower

Abso

rber

Condenser

Filter*

Reboiler LP STEAM

CO2-Lean stream

Make-up Water

Interstage cooler

Solvent Tank

Make Up

Solvent*

Condensate

FLUE GAS RETURN

Make-up Water

Cooling Water In

CW

CW

CW

CW

CW

To C

W H

X

From

CW

HX

Cooling Water Out

El. Power Supply

S1

Blower

Condensing Cooler

Advanced emission control system

High capacity structured packing

Optimized Blower Concept

Optimized Energy Consumption

Higher Desorption Pressure

Optional Interstage Heater

Condensate

LP_Steam

Advanced Column Material & Design

Gravity Flow Interstage Cooler

Fußzeile 19

Techno-Economic Assessment: Linde-BASF PCC Plant Design for 550 MWe PC Power Plant

● Single train PCC design for ~ 13,000 TPD CO2 capture

● 40-50% reduced plot area to 180m x 120 m

Specifications and Design Basis

identical to DOE/NETL Report 2007/1281

as per DE-FOA-0000403 requirements

— Bituminous Illinois #6 Coal Characteristics

— Site Characteristics and Ambient Conditions

— Pulverized Coal Boiler Design

— Subcritical Steam Turbine Design

— Steam Cycle Conditions

— Environmental Controls and Performance

— Balance of Plant

— Economic Assumptions and Methodology

UniSim Design Suite R390, integrated with

— Brian Research & Engineering ProMax®

software for PCC parametric optimization

— BASF’s proprietary package for rigorous solvent performance predictions

Fußzeile 20

PCC – Power Plant Typical Process Integration Option (LB-1)

SECONDARY AIR FANS

COAL FEED

PULV

ERIZ

ED C

OAL

BOIL

ER

PRIMARY AIR FANS

INFILTRATION AIR

SCR

BOILER

FEEDWATER

HP ST

FEEDWATER HEATER SYSTEM

MAIN STEAM

COLD REHEAT

HOT REHEAT

IP ST LP ST

CONDENSER

CO2 CAPTURE & COMPRESSION PLANT

BAGHOUSE FGD

ID FANS

LIMESTONE SLURRY

CO2 COMPR.

TO STACK

MAKEUP WATER

OXIDATION AIR

GYPSUM

BOTTOM ASH

FLY ASH

CO2 PRODUCT

EL. POWER GENERATOR

10

8

7

5

2 1

4 3

6

9

14 13

15 12

16 11

23

25

24

26

19

18 17

21

20

22

Absorber

Treated flue gasto stack

CO2to Compression

Reboiler

Desorber

Condenser

Make-up water

SolventStorage

Tank

Interstage Cooler

Flue gas

DCC

NaOH Tank

Rich/LeanSolvent

Hex

Flue gas blower

Solvent Cooler

Interstage Heater

LP_Steam

Condensatereturn

LP/IP_Steam

Condensate return

Solvent Filter

Water Wash

Water Wash

Water Cooler

Cooler

Separator

Fußzeile 21

PCC – Power Plant Advanced Process Integration Option (LB-2)

SECONDARY AIR FANS

COAL FEED

PULV

ERIZ

ED C

OAL

BOIL

ER

PRIMARY AIR FANS

INFILTRATION AIR

SCR

BOILER

FEEDWATER

HP ST

FEEDWATER HEATER SYSTEM

MAIN STEAM

COLD REHEAT

HOT REHEAT

IP ST LP ST

CONDENSER

CO2 CAPTURE & COMPRESSION PLANT

BAGHOUSE FGD

ID FANS

LIMESTONE SLURRY

CO2 COMPR.

TO STACK

MAKEUP WATER

OXIDATION AIR

GYPSUM

BOTTOM ASH

FLY ASH

CO2 PRODUCT

EL. POWER GENERATOR

10

8

7

5

2 1

4 3

6

9

14 13

15 12

16 11 11a HRU

23

25

24

26

19

18b

18

17a

17

17b

21

20

BPST

Absorber

Treated flue gasto stack

CO2to Compression

Reboiler

Desorber

Condenser

Make-up water

SolventStorage

Tank

Interstage Cooler

Flue gas

DCC

NaOH Tank

Rich/LeanSolvent

Hex

Flue gas blower

Solvent Cooler

Interstage Heater

LP_Steam

Condensatereturn

LP/IP_Steam

Condensate return

Solvent Filter

Water Wash

Water Wash

Water Cooler

Cooler

Separator

22

Partial Recovery of Sensible Heat from Flue Gas

LP Steam for Desorber’s Interstage Heater

Power Cogeneration Utilizing BPST

Significantly Increased Power Plant Efficiency

Fußzeile 22

Energy demand for different PCC plants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Reboiler Duty Cooling Duty Electrical Power

Spec

ific

ener

gy d

eman

d el

emen

ts

NETL-MEA Linde-BASF PCC (LB-1) Linde-BASF PCC (LB-2)

`

Effect of PCC technology improvementson incremental energy requirement for

power plant w ith CO2 capture and compression

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NETL-MEA Linde-BASF PCC(LB-1)

Linde-BASF PCC (LB-2)

Incr

emen

tal f

uel r

equi

rem

ent f

or C

O2

capt

ure

and

com

pres

sion

Comparative PCC Performance Results Linde-BASF vs Reference DOE/NETL Case*

* Reference Case # 10 of DOE-NETL 2007/1281 Report

Fußzeile 23

Total PCC Plant Cost

Total Cost of PCC Plant for 550 MW PC Power Plant

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Case 10 - NETL_2007 LINDE-BASF - Option LB-1 LINDE-BASF - Option LB-2*

PCC Technology Options

Tota

l Cos

t of P

CC

(MM

200

7_$)

CO2 Removal CO2 Compression & Drying

Significantly reduced total PCC

plant Cost relative to DOE/NETL

2007 Reference Case #10 due to

1. Reduced coal combustion (CO2 production) for 11.1% (LB-1) or 15.2% (LB-2)

2. Single train PCC design

3. Optimized PCC plant design

Fußzeile 24

Power plant efficiency improvements and LCOE reductions with Linde-BASF PCC technology

Incremental improvements in power plant efficiencyfrom MEA based PCC to LINDE-BASF LB-2 Option

1.76%

1.35%

24.9%

29.4%

1.39%

20%

21%

22%

23%

24%

25%

26%

27%

28%

29%

30%

NETL - MEA AdvancedSolvent

PCCOptimization

(LB-1)

Heat andPower

Integration(LB-2)

LINDE-BASF(LB-2)

Net

HH

V Ef

ficie

ncy

Incremental Reductions in Levelized Cost Of Electricityfrom MEA based PCC to LINDE-BASF LB-2 Option

5.5

5.5

2.3

101.2101.2103.5109.0114.1119.6

5.1

$65

$70

$75

$80

$85

$90

$95

$100

$105

$110

$115

$120

$125

NETL - M

EA

Advan

ced S

olven

t

Proces

s Enh

ance

ments

PCC Opti

mizatio

n (LB

-1)

Heat a

nd Pow

er Int

egrat

ion (L

B-2)

LINDE-B

ASF

LCO

E (2

007$

/MW

hr)

Source: Project DE-FE0007453 Techno-economic analysis of 550 MWe PC power plant with CO2 capture, May 2012.

Fußzeile 25

Detailed engineering timeline: Key dates

Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12

- Design review- PSR 1 and 2- Hazop

- 60% model review- Evaluate optimum layout - Equipment packages

- Vendor selection- 3-D model - Cost compilation- 30% model review - 90% model review- Update P&ID (Hazop actions) - PSR 3

- Module package- RFQ to vendors

PSR: Process Safety review; P&ID: Process and Instrumentation Diagrams; RFQ: Request for quotes; Hazop: Hazard and operability study

Fußzeile 26

Task 3: Design Selection Pilot Plant Layout

Fußzeile 26

Optimized plant layout to be investigated

Fußzeile 27

3D Model of NCCC site with Linde-BASF Pilot Plant

Linde-BASF Pilot Plant

Fußzeile 28

3D Model of Linde-BASF 1 MWe Pilot Plant

Absorber

Stripper

Structural support for windload protection

Fußzeile 29

3D Model of Linde-BASF Pilot Plant modular design (3 level structure)

Fußzeile 30

Key design and engineering features and decisions

● Joint design basis development (Linde and SCS/NCCC) for the nominal 1 MWe pilot plant

● Leveraged Niederaussem pilot plant experience for early design selection decision on target solvent, pilot plant preliminary sizing, process control and analytical sampling and measurement

● Targeted 1 m absorber diameter size, leading to testing capability to 30 TPD CO2 or 1.5 MWe equivalent – confirmed utility availability with upside margins

● Integrated modeling approach for detailed engineering – start with the existing NCCC facility model with tie-in points defined and integrated into pilot plant model to avoid conflicts in build phase

● Equipment and module packages sent to multiple vendors and vendor selection performed based on cost, capability and eagerness for involvement in project

● Concrete column sections evaluated but determined to impact project timeline significantly – currently allowing for swapping the SS bottom section of absorber with concrete section.

● Concrete column section engineering design to be completed in BP2 and cost proposal made during the continuation request for BP3.

● Current pilot plant equipment procurement and build schedule (BP2) requires BP2 timeframe extension by 3-months. Will explore improving the schedule.

Fußzeile 31

Project progress: Key Project Milestones (Budget Period 1) Status

Budget Period 1 (Dec. 1, 2011 – Feb. 28, 2013)

— Submit project management plan (03/09/2012) √

— Conduct kick-off meeting with DOE-NETL (11/15/2011) √

— Complete initial techno-economic analysis on a 550 MWel power plant (05/04/2012) √

— Complete basic design and engineering of a 1 MWe pilot plant to be tested at NCCC (06/20/2012) √

— Execute host site agreement (10/31/2012) – completed 01/09/2013 √

— Complete initial EH&S assessment (10/31/2012) – Completed 12/14/2012 √

— Complete detailed pilot plant engineering and cost analyis for the 1 MWe pilot plant to be tested at NCCC (01/31/2013) Planned for completion by 01/31/2013

Fußzeile 32

Status against Budget Period 1 decision point success criteria

Decision Point Basis for Decision/Success Criteria Status

Completion of

Budget Period 1

Successful completion of all work proposed in Budget Period 1 On track

Demonstrate a 10% reduction in capital costs with Linde-BASF CO2 capture process

30.5 to 34.7% for PCC and 16.6 to 17.3% for integrated power plant

Demonstrate a LCOE increase of less than 65% over the baseline

62.2% and 58.8% for 2 options considered

Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement Completed

Submission of a Topical Report – Initial Techno-Economic Analysis

Completed

Submission of a Topical Report – Initial EH&S Assessment Submitted

Submission of a Topical Report – Detailed Pilot Plant Engineering and Cost Analysis

By 1/31/2013

Submission and approval of a Continuation Application in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award

Presentation to DOE-NETL on Jan 14, 2013

Fußzeile 33

Acknowledgement and Disclaimer

Acknowledgement: This presentation is based on work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0007453. Disclaimer: “This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.”

04/02/2013 34

Linde Overview & Focus on CCUS Pathways

PCC Technology & Update on DOE Project

CCUS Activities & Focus Areas

Linde Focus Areas

04/02/2013 35

Industry & Government Collaboration Technology Development

Commercial Areas of Focus Project Activities

– Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC) – National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative

(NEORI)

– Pre-Combustion: Rectisol advancements, improved integration

– Post-Combustion: commercial-scale demo, 3rd gen technology

– Oxy-Fuel: Advanced HP oxy-fuel

– “Bankable” arrangements – Risk-sharing models

– Summit’s Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP) – Odessa, TX

– UK DECC Projects: including oxy-fuel & pre-combustion

– Various EOR-driven opportunities in US and abroad including NG-based CCUS

Challenges – Carbon value, lack of planning certainty – Risk-sharing & value-sharing of emitter, capturer, user

Key Goal – Develop repeatable commercial-scale projects – Continue focus on technology advancement

CCUS – It can be done!!

< 20% of people attempting to climb Mount Everest are successful in reaching the summit

… but some do!

How can we get CCUS projects over the finish line with today’s “carbon valuation”??

Continued technology advancement, creative business models & rational risk-sharing