AUTUMN 2012

1st UKCCSRC BIANNUAL MEETING 19-20 September

DURHAM

Hosted by:

Agenda.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2Jon Gibbins - Introduing UKCCSRC.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4Jacqui Williams - Research Councils UK Energy Programme.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26Jon Gluyas - CO2-EOR and Carbon Geo-Storage: UK Perspective.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34Ward Goldthorpe - The Crown Estate CCS Programme.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73Ian Donaldson - CCS Cost Reduction Taskforce.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87Stuart Gilfillan - Aquistore.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98Matthew Billson - CCS DECC update.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 116Steve Milne - New approach to extend durability of sorbent powders.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 127Martin Sweatman - Feasibility of a wetting layer absorption carbon capture process.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 145Eleanor Campbell - AMPGas.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 153Jon Gibbins -GasFACTS.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 163Sai Gu - Computational Modelling and Optimisation of Carbon Capture Reactors.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 180

UK CCS Research Centre

19-20 September 2012

Rosemary Cramp Lecture Theatre, Earth Sciences Building

Durham University

Draft Agenda

Wednesday 19 September

12.30-13.30 Registration Networking Lunch and CCS posters

13.30-14.00 Welcome and UK CCS Research Centre Launch (Jon Gibbins, UK CCS RC Director)

14.00-14.15 Q&A and Discussion

14.15-14.30 CCS research funding update (Jacqui Williams, EPSRC)

14.30-15.15 Keynote Presentation: Enhanced Oil Recovery (Jon Gluyas, Durham University)

15.15–15.45 Refreshment Break

15.45 – 16.15 The Crown Estate CCS Programme (Ward Goldthorpe, The Crown Estate)

16.15-16.45 CCS Cost Reduction Task Force (Ian Donaldson, The Crown Estate)

16.45-17.00 CO2 Injection – UK/Canadian Opportunities (Stuart Gilfillan, University of Edinburgh)

17.00 Close

18.00 Networking Reception (Penthouse Ballroom, Collingwood College)

19.00 Dinner (Collingwood College)

Thursday 20 September

9.00-9.30 Tea/Coffee and Croissants

9.30-10.00 Recent DECC CCS Developments (Matthew Billson, DECC OCCS)

10.00-12.00 Parallel Sessions, either A or B

Session A - Recently Funded Capture Projects

10.00 – 10.15 New Approach to Extend Durability of Sorbent Powders for Multicycle High

Temperature CO2 Capture in Hydrogen (Steve Milne, University of Leeds)

10.15-10.30 Feasibility of a Wetting Layer Absorption Carbon Capture Process Based on Chemical

Solvents (Martin Sweatman, University of Strathclyde

Natural Gas Programme Grants

10.30-10.45 Effective Adsorbents for Establishing Solids Looping as a Next Generation NG PCC

Technology (Hao Liu, University of Nottingham)

10.45-11.00 Adsorption Materials and Processes for Carbon Capture from Gas-Fired Power Plants –

AMPGas (Eleanor Campbell, University of Edinburgh)

11.00-11.30 Coffee break

11.30-11.45 Gas-FACTS: Gas - Future Advanced Capture Technology Options (Jon Gibbins,

University of Edinburgh)

11.45-12.00 Computational Modelling and Optimisation of Carbon Capture Reactors (Jason Cooke,

Cranfield University)

12.00-12.45 Plenary Wrap-up

Session B – EOR Opportunities in the UK and Overseas Injection Collaborations

10.00 – 11.00 EOR Discussion

Stuart Haszeldine, University of Edinburgh

Tony Espie, BP Alternative Energy

11.00-11.30 Coffee break

11.30-12.00 UK EOR Discussion

12.00-12.45 Plenary Wrap-up

12.45-13.45 Networking Lunch

13.45 Close

www.ukccsrc.ac.uk

The UK Carbon Capture and

Storage Research Centre

UKCCSRC

Six Monthly MeetingDurham, 19 September 2012

Delivering Impact,

Developing Leaders,

Shaping Capability

The UKCCSRC is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences

Research Council as part of the Research Councils UK Energy

Programme

The UK CCS Research CentreFocal point and driving force for UK CCS fundamental research and academic analysis

Supporting long-term strategic research programmes and national facilities (i.e. filling gap in national capabilities)

Working with range of stakeholders to establish pathways to deliver research results to the end users

£10M funding over 5 years from EPSRC + £3M from DECC + £2.5M from participants

Independent Board appointed by EPSRC

Membership open to all academic researchers with shareable research projects, current or within last 3 years – see www.ukccsrc.ac.uk

First call for proposals just submitted, fast-track work on APGTF priority areas not covered by other funding

The activities of the UKCCSRC are overseen by an independent Board of 7 individuals from CCS stakeholder groupings, appointed by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).

Philip Sharman (Evenlode Associates) - Board ChairRussell Cooper (National Grid)Tim Dixon (IEA GHG)Tony Espie (BP)Tricia Henton (Board Member, Coal Authority)Robin Irons (E.ON)Edward Rubin (Carnegie Mellon University)Ex officio:Jacqui Williams (EPSRC)Matthew Billson (DECC)

http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/about-centre/management-str ucture/board-members

UKCCSRC Secretariat

ukccsrc@ed.ac.uk

Tel. +44 (0) 131 650 8564

Liz Vander Meer Centre Coordinator

Robin Cathcart Network Manager

Leigh Murray Archive, Calendar, Industry CCS

Julia Eighteen Membership, Overseas links

Nicola McRobbie Early Careers

http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/acttrom-0ACTTROM: Advanced Capture Testing in a Transportable , Remotely-Operated Mini-labUKCCSRC Project with DECC and EPSRC funding

http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/carbon-capture-storage-research-centre/pact-shared-facilitiesUKCCSRC

Pilot-Scale Advanced Capture Technology (PACT) Facilities -

Beighton

Amine

Post Combustion Capture

Plant (150 KW)

Coal

S

B

C

G

Control

Units &

System

Integration

Oxygen

Coal

Biomass

AIR

Natural Gas

Gas

Turbine

APU &

Micro-

turbine

<150Kw

Oxy/air-

Solid Fuels

CTF with

EGR

250KW

Coal –

Biomass

blend

Fuels

50KW

Coal –

Biomass

Air/Oxy

FB Reactor

150KW

Gas Mixer

Facilities

Up to

250 KW

O

L

Planned

IGCC

Reactor

(200 KW)

R

Gas

Cleaning

and

Shift

System

Monitoring

Via

Internet

R

E

E

M

A E

E

The Centre is funding commissioning and operating support for

UKCCRSC-PACT for next 5 years, costing 810k, and is also offering

support worth up to 630k for UKCCSRC members and other

academics to undertake new research activities using UKCCSRC-

PACT facilities, to complement £2.9M funding from DECC to

move and set up equipment provided by RWE Npower.

Capture Transport Storage

Post Pre Oxy

Interfaces + Interactions + Interoperability

Bio

ma

s

s

Bio

ma

s

s

Bio

ma

s

s

Pipeline Ship

Po

int

to

po

int

So

lve

nt

So

lid

Me

mb

ra

ne

So

lve

nt

So

lid

Me

mb

ra

ne

Ga

s

ph

ase

De

nse

ph

ase

Hydro-carbon Aquifer

Monitoring

Capacity assessment

Injection engineering

Regulation

Financial Environment

Public acceptance

Complete chains taking CO2 from source to secure geological storage

Industry

Hy

dro

carb

o

ns

Ce

me

nt

Iro

n &

ste

el

Low

carbon

energy

CO2

processing

Oxygen

production

Lon

g/s

ho

rt

dis

tan

c

e

Buffer

storage

Buoy

transfer

• Link research to the way knowledge is applied to implement CCS

• Understand how and where knowledge is applied

• And how R&D know-how gets delivered

• Led by the Research Area Champions and gathering input from a wide range of academic, industry and other stakeholders.

• Results summarised in a RAPID Handbook.

Research and Pathways to Impact Delivery (RAPID)

A. APPLICATION IMPACT TABLES AND RESEARCH SUMMARIES1. What knowledge and related capacity will be neede d to implement CCS?2. To what extent is necessary knowledge and capacity already available to users?

B. RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES3. How can gaps in knowledge be met? Sliding scale of UKCCSRC involvement

In-house research from UKCCSRC funds In-house research with external funds

Research with external partnersNo research but UKCCSRC role as informed user

UKCCSRC as information clearing house No UKCCSRC input needed at all

C. KNOWLEDGE DELIVERY ACTIVITIES4. How is knowledge made available to users?Routes depend on knowledge and user

Identify knowledge sources and usersIdentify routes for delivery

Long-term delivery activities

D. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY5. What UKCCSRC-related capacity is required?6. How is this created, maintained and delivered?

e.g. Trained people, Experimental/test facilities, M ethods/standards/regulations, Software etc.

Full Scope for RAPID

4

EMR meeting

15 June 2012

RAPID PHASE 1 TIMETABLE(planned dates from UKCCSRC proposal)

7

Planned

Date

Actual

Date

Notes

13 March 13 March BIS - Discussion of research impacts at APGTF meeting, London – to identify industry

contributors and to develop some of the fundamental concepts

2-3 April 2-3 April UCL - UKCCSC Network meeting and UKCCSRC announcement, introduction to RAPID and

preliminary discussions

wb 7 May 10 May Leeds - Meeting organised around 18 Research Areas – bottom-up consideration of research

18 May Imperial – as above

wb 28 May 11 June Edinburgh - Meeting organised around applications – synergy and commonality between

pathways, range of impacts explored with stakeholders

19 June Imperial – as above

25 June RAPID discussion at UKCCSR Early Career Researchers meeting, Leeds

25 June 2 July GeolSoc, London - Meeting focussing on RAPID results and Phase 1 Call

12-13 July 16 July IMechE, London - Final presentations and discussions (drafting team)

RAPID PHASE 1 HANDBOOK + CALL LAUNCHED 24 JULY

Canada trip – links to storage trialshttp://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/ukccsrc-and-epsrc-challenges-geological-storage-ccs-calls-and-links-research-canada

Canada trip – links to capture

UKCCSRC First Call ProposalsAs of 17 Sept 2012Total number of proposals: 41Total funding requested: £8.15MTotal number of UK institutions involved in proposals: 26

Proposal Costs

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

£0£50

,000

£100,

000

£150,

000

£200,

000

£250,

000

£300,

000

£350,

000

£400,

000

£450,

000

£500,

000

£550,

000

£600,

000

£650,

000

£700,

000

£750,

000

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

po

sals

Application Impact Table Number of Proposals

High Temperature Looping Cycles 1

Industrial (Iron & Steel) 1

Industrial (High Purity Sources) 1

Pre-Combustion Adsorption & Membrane Capture 3

Social Science & Public Perception 3

Oxyfuel Combustion Capture 5

Pre-Combustion Capture from Gasification 5

Economics & Finance 6

Storage Regulation & Licensing 6

Solvent Post-Combustion Capture 6

CO2 & Related Substance Properties 8

Pipeline & Shipping Transport 8

Environmental Impact 9

Post-Combustion (coal & gas) Adsorption 9

Storage 13

CCS Systems 13

Submission AITs varied from one to 5 listings, so numbers in the table above

do not correspond to total submissions.

Industry Capture RAPIDThe UK CCS Research Centre in collaboration with BIS and DECC will be running a series of meetings examining the current status of CCS technologies that would be applicable to UK industries and further technology developments that might be required before commercial deployment.

Outputs will be presentations from meetings describing CCS applications, expert assessments of the underpinning knowledge for CCS implementation and potential routes to deployment. Published December 2012.

Workshops will bring together industry, government, academic and other stakeholders for detailed discussions on specific industry CCS applications, as follows:

Industry Date LocationIron & steel 19 Oct SheffieldCement 22 Oct LondonChemical 23 Oct LondonRefineries, fuel processing 5 Nov EdinburghGlass and other large industrial heat users 7 Nov Sheffield

UKCCSRC – looking ahead

• DECC Commercialisation call? – priority but unclear

• UK energy strategy – role for gas? (& coal & biomass?)

• £5M for EPSRC storage call

• £3M for further internal UKCCSRC calls

• Further funding calls? EU, doctoral training etc.

• Industry co-funding

• RAPID Phase 2 – more research-user involvement

• Links to overseas CCS activities – some funding

• Literature archive – comprehensive range of CCS docs

• Early careers programme

UKCCSRC – strategic issues

• Timing – planning around DECC call dates

• Serving members – but limited resources

• Linking CCS research to CCS delivery - RAPID

• Sustainable CCS academic research funding

(not boom and bust – programme not projects)

(people and careers – inside and outside academe)

• Longer-term research groupings?

(past end of individual consortium projects)

• Links with overseas research – added value?

• Locating international CCS fundamental research in UK

• Funding model up to and post 2017?

Research Councils UKEnergy Programme

An update on our support for CCS

September 2012

Jacqui Williams

Our support for CCS

CCS has been identified as a priority area for the Energy Programme. The Energy Programme supports over £38M in current grants for CCS research and capacity building projects including:The UK CCS Research Centre (£10m from EPSRC)Consortia researching carbon capture, transport and storage; CCU; multi-scale whole systems modelling; CCS for natural gas, eco-systems impacts: kinetics of fluid-rock interactions in reservoirs.

Projects on Cleaner Fossil Fuels and CCS technologies in collaboration with China (NSFC)Science and Innovation award

Centres for Doctoral Training such as the Engineering Doctorate Centre in Efficient Power from Fossil Energy and Carbon Capture TechnologiesA network to link together the research communityResponsive mode, First grants and fellowships.Work with TSB, ETI and DECC to coordinate activities

NERC provide support for storage and environmental CCS research and for institutes such as BGS.

Role of UK CCS Research CentreA vehicle to pull together and coordinate CCS research in the UK, improving cooperation between researchers and taking a whole systems approach as appropriate.A route for industry and other stakeholder involvement in research and for knowledge exchange and input to policy.Lead on coordinating international CCS activities and raising the UK’s profile and ability to compete internationally.Managing data, knowledge and facilities as appropriate.Consider the postgraduate training and skills needs for CCS.Look at medium to long term challenges such as those defined in the DECC R&D roadmap, and develop a strategy on how to work towards how meeting them and helping to accelerate the deployment of CCS.Focus on underpinning science, and seek additional support to address more applied research.Connect with applied research through other funding agencies andindustry.

Growth in Annual Expenditure by Research Theme, 2002-2011

EPSRC Commitments

EPSRC has developed its commitment plan for the current DeliveryPlan period covering period 2011 to 2015. This is shown below together with the profile that was achieved in the previous Delivery plan.

Energy Programme CCS activities 2012/13

CallsFellowship call: early career and established career proposals invited in CCS. Still open.Stage gating of carbon capture and utilisation projects (closed call) £3MGrand Challenge in CCS (EPS research challenges in geological storage) £5M

Future activitiesNERC is considering the outputs of the CCS storage workshops it held earlier in the year.Responsive mode support availablePossible call under FENCO with NorwayWorking with the Centre and networkAgreeing the final scope of EPSRC’s CDT call and which themes to be includedEnergy strategy fellow roadmap workshop for fossil fuels/CCS.

EPSRC/NERC interface

Injection of CO2 and injection sites – e.g. cap rock. Injection EPSRC; cap rock NERCMonitoring, measurement and verification. Depends on focus.Modelling eg of reservoirs. [Generally NERC, fluid dynamics EPSRC]Enhanced oil recovery. [Usually EPSRC]Behaviour and migration of trapped CO2. [NERC]Permeability and porous media. [Usually NERC]Pore scale studies [Probably NERC]Capture and transport and whole systems modelling: EPSRCStorage and environmental aspects of CCS: NERC

Points to note and for discussion

Please help with peer review if you receive requests.

Please seek remit advice from the RCs first if you are unsure which Council to submit to. Use our remit query service. What are the important areas for any future

calls in CCS?Should we be bringing together the CCU and

CCS communities more?

Do you have any examples of impact from RC support that we can use?

1

CO2-EOR and Carbon Geo-storage; A UK Perspective

Jon Gluyas & Simon MathiasDepartment of Earth Sciences

Durham University

UKCCSC, Durham, UK

September 2012Email: j.g.gluyas@durham.ac.uk

2

Outline� Part 1 CO2-EOR in context

� Displacement & sweep efficiency

� Thief zones & gravity segregation

� WAG, SWAG and FAWAG

� Summary

� Part 2 Application & UK Potential

� The prize

� CO2 supply and facilities longevity

� Costing the earth & saving the planet

� The CO2-EOR heritage

3

Denver Unit of the Wasson Field, West Texas

NETL CO2-EOR Primer (2010)

4

Thermal methods

Steam injection leads to reduced oil viscosity.

Air injection leads to in situ combustion.

Gas injection

Includes injection of natural gas, nitrogen and CO2.

Injected gas displaces oil.

If reservoir pressure is sufficiently high the gas dissolves into the

oil leading to reduced oil viscosity and volume swelling.

Chemical methods

Polymers are used to change the viscosity of injection water

Surfactants (like detergent) are used to reduce surface tension

5

Reegtien (2010) SPE 136034

Maturation curve for EOR

6

� Improve displacement efficiency (micro-

scale)

� Improve sweep efficiency (macro-scale)

What are we trying to do?

Al-Shuraiqi et al.

12th European Symposium on IOR

From SPE 97270

Residually

trapped oil

Rock

grainsFlow of oil

Adapted from CO2CORC

Water

7

Electron photomicrograph of a

sandstone

1 mm

Pore-space

Pore-

throat

Displacement efficiency (micro-scale)

(Price, 1996)

8

If the rock is water wet, water adheres to the sides of

the pores due to surface tension.

Residual trapping

(Extracted from Tchelepi, 2009)

OilWater

9

If the rock is water wet, water adheres to the sides of

the pores due to surface tension.

As water moves upwards oil is displaced.

But as the water passes through the pore throat,

some of the oil is trapped.

(Extracted from Tchelepi, 2009)

OilWater

Residual trapping

10

Surfactants (like detergent) reduce surface tension

allowing oil to connect into a continuous phase.

Application of surfactants

OilWater

11

Sweep efficiency (macro-scale)

� Viscous fingering

� Poor conformance

� Gravity segregation

12

Viscous fingeringMobility ratio is essentially the ratio

of displacing to recovering fluid

viscosity. Very small (or large)

mobility ratios lead to poor sweep.

Ultimately, the front can become

unstable and viscous fingering can

occur.

Mobility ratio can be favourably

modified by increasing CO2 viscosity

by polymer addition.

[ ] 21)1(2 −+−= γγ DD hx

(Zhang et al. 1997, Chem Eng Sci 52:37-54)

13

Poor conformance

ProductionInjection

CO2

Oil

CO2 often travels

preferentially through

high permeability thief

zones.

ProductionInjection

CO2

Oil

Sealing thief zones

with gel or foam can

lead to significantly

enhanced sweep

efficiency.

14

Identification of thief-zones

See for example Butler et al. (2009, Hydrogeology Journal 17:1849–1858) or Li et al. (2010, SPE 116286)

15

(Mathias et al. 2006, Water Resour. Res. 43: W07443)

Identification of flowing horizons

16

Gravity segregation

ProductionInjection

CO2

Oil

De

pth

Permeability

De

pth

PermeabilityProduction

Injection

CO2

Oil

Use foam or gel to

reduce permeability.

17

Application of gel for gas cut-off

Production

Gas

Oil

Water

See for example Al Dhafeeri et al. (2008, SPE 114323)

Localised application of gel reduces permeability

under gas cap leading to reduced gas production

due to coning.

18

WAG: Water Alternating Gas

Pulsing of water and gas leads to reduced composite

mobility due to residual trapping of gas. However, gravity

segregation can still be an issue.

SWAG: Simultaneous Water And Gas

Simultaneous injection of water and gas at the top and

bottom of reservoir, respectively. Should reduce gravity

segregation but often limited by poor injectivity.

FAWAG: Foam Assisted WAG

Same as WAG but with surfactant. Combined surfactant and

gas leads to foam generation which reduces the mobility of

the gas.

See Aladasani and Bai (2010, SPE 130726) and Anwan et al. (2008, SPE99546)

19

Summary� The aim of CO2-EOR is to mix residing oil with CO2 to

reduce oil viscosity and increase oil volume.

� The challenge is to improve displacement (micro-

scale) and sweep (macro-scale) efficiency of the CO2.

� Gravity segregation and thief zones are significant

problems for large carbonate reservoirs.

� Gels, foams and WAG strategies represent a range of

mitigating technologies (which reduce CO2 mobility),

which can be used in various combinations to

optimise various effects.

20

CO2-EOR – Texas� Initiated 1970s in response to oil crisis� Texas at forefront of technology & leads the way today� Permian Basin in NW Texas is the primary injection area� 1000s km 32” pipeline & associated infrastructure developed� Natural & anthropogenic CO2 sources used

21

CO2-EOR – Technology

� Water Alternating Gas (WAG)• CO2 injected to swell oil and increase fluidity• H2O injection to displace oil to production wells

� Gravity Stable Gas Injection (GSGI)• CO2 injected at field crest• Stabilising pressure and promoting gravity drainage

� Miscible flood – critical CO2 dissolved in oil • swelling oil, viscosity reduced surface tension reduced

� Immiscible CO2 displacement• Partial dissolution in oil may reduce viscosity substantially

22

Schematic WAG

http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/Petroleum/publications/eordrawings/eordraw.html

23

How much additional recovery?

� West Texas 4-12% of STOIIP (observed)• 60+ projects (~100 world wide)

� US DOE 7-14% of STOIIP (calculated)� Institute for Energy (Netherlands) 9-18% STOIIP of

UK, Norwegian & Danish fields (calculated)

� This study (2009) UK additional 3-8bn bbl� DECC (2012) UK mean additional recovery 5.7bn

(5-15% of STOIIP)

24

How much CO 2 is used?

� 0.1 to 0.45 pore volumes injected� Typically 1 (net*) tonne of CO2 injected delivers 2.5 to 5

bbl oil (average 3 bbl)� Tapered WAG (decreasing CO2 volumes) most effective

*Net = total injected - recycled

25

UK Oil Fields

Moray Firth &

Central N Sea

Viking

Graben

From Gluyas & Hichens, 2003

26

UK Offshore Oil Reserve

Proven Probable P+P Possible Maximum

Cumulative Oil Production in millions tonnes (bnbbl)

3315

(24.9)

Estimated Ultimate recovery in millions tonnes (bnbbl)

3723(27.9)

361(2.7)

4048(30.4)

360(2.7)

4444(33.3)

https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/chapters/Table4_3.htm

27

UKCS Recovery Factors ~45%

� High End - Piper – recovery factor >70%� Low End - Lyell – recovery factor ~5%

Jayasekera &

Goodyear SPE 75171

28

UKCS & West Texas Oil Fields

UKCS

� Sandstones� Most > 2.7 km deep� Most > 90ºC� Light oil ~35-40API� Typically high quality

(permeability – 100s mD)� Line drive water floods for

secondary recovery� Low well density

West Texas

� Sandstones & dolomites� 1.2 to 1.8 km deep� 15-60ºC� Light oil 30-42API� Typically low quality

(permeability 4-16 mD)� Pattern floods

l� High well density

29

UKCS vs West Texas

� West Texas – incremental oil recovery 4-12% of STOIIP

� CO2 is expected to be miscible (or nearly so) with current conditions in the UKCS oil reservoirs

� UKCS fields more permeable and at higher temperature than those in West Texas – both factors may favour the North Sea

From Goodyear et al, IEA EOR Caracas 2002

30

UKCS – The Prize

� Assuming UKCS:• Reserve of 30,000mmbbl• STOIIP 30,000/0.45 = 67,000mmbbl

� From West Texas 4-12% additional recovery of STOIIP• Yields 2,700 – 8,000 mmbbl technical reserves

• Requiring ~1 t CO2 per 3bbl*

� For ~3,000 mmbbl, ~1,000 Mt CO2 required

*range 2.5 to 5 bbl/tonne

31

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_change/climate_change.aspx

� Scotland 19mm tonnes� North East 21mm tonnes� Yorkshire 27mm tonnes

100km

UK oil province

UK Industrial CO 2 production 2007

32

Supply & Demand

� Assuming all industrial CO2 from the eastern UK could be available for CO2-EOR yields 60-70mm tonnes per annum

� Over a 15-25 year period (ie typical CO2-EOR project length) this would use 1 billion tonnes CO2 …. the quantity required to optimise CO2-EOR in the North Sea

33

Are UK Oil Fields Ready For CO2-EOR?

Arbroath Claymore

MaureenNinian

34

The Time is Right (but don’t wait)

Jayasekera & Goodyear SPE 75171

UKCS Shrinking Infrastructure

35

UK Security of Supply

DECC publication 2008

Shortfall in 2010

~15 mm tonnes

Equivalent to

~300,000 bopd

Equivalent to

Initiating ~1/3 potential CO2-EOR projects

36

Costing the Earth?

� For the North Sea• There is no CO2 infrastructure• There is no ‘ready’ source of CO2

• The first project will be an enormous commitment

37Capture, Transportation, Injection & FacilitiesMorecambe, Magnus & Miller

38

Saving the Planet

� 1bbl of oil contains ≡ 0.42 t CO2 after combustion� 1bbl produced by CO2-EOR requires between 0.4 and 0.2 t

CO2

� At best – the process is carbon neutral� At worst – the process is halving emissions

39

CO2-EOR Heritage

� The CO2 production from eastern UK could ‘power’CO2-EOR in the North Sea for 10-15 years per project, over ~30 year period

� It could deliver:• Improved security of oil supply• Infrastructure usable for carbon

capture • Increased tax revenues over

current projections

Deep aquifer storage area

The Crown Estate CCS (CTS)

Programme

Dr Ward Goldthorpe

UK CCS Research Centre19-20 September 2012, Durham University

Introduction to The Crown Estate

The Crown Estate in its current form dates from 1760

•The Crown Estate manages a £8 billion property portfolio

across the UK: Urban, Rural, Energy & Infrastructure, Marine,

Windsor

•Over the last ten years The Crown Estate has paid over

£2 billion to the Treasury

The Crown Estate’s Storage Rights

Within the territorial limit (12nm)

• Owner of the seabed

• Property rights over surface and sub-surface

On the UK continental shelf

• UK Gas Importation and Storage Zone

• Vested rights under the Energy Act 2008

The UK Licensing/Leasing Regime

Appraisal Construction Operation Closure Post Closure

DECC Carbon Dioxide Storage Licence

DECC Carbon Dioxide Storage Permit

Agreement for Lease

Storage Lease

The Crown Estate’s CTS Objectives

Work with UK government to facilitate deployment of large scale CCS projects during the next 5-10 years

Prepare for competitive storage leasing and project selection beyond the UK commercialisation programme

Developing the CO2 Transport and Storage

Market

Demonstration

• Capital support

• Risk allocation

• Site access

Transition

• Support mechanisms

• Fiscal incentives

• Regulation reform

Market

• Value transfer

• Competitive services

• Market returns

Re-Framing CCS Industry Development

Storage

• Site Access

• Certification

• Liability and Risk

• Exploration/Appraisal

• Facilities/Storage Capacity

• Co-location

• Site Access

• Certification

• Liability and Risk

• Exploration/Appraisal

• Facilities/Storage Capacity

• Co-location

Transport

• Pipeline Capacity

• Pipeline Corridors

• Coastal Interactions

• Clustering

• Pipeline Capacity

• Pipeline Corridors

• Coastal Interactions

• Clustering

Capture

• Emissions Performance Standards

• Contract for Difference

• Carbon Price Floor

• Capacity Mechanism

• Industrial Processes

• Emissions Performance Standards

• Contract for Difference

• Carbon Price Floor

• Capacity Mechanism

• Industrial Processes

Crown Estate Programme Activities

• Spatial planning

• Resource assessment

• Facilitating access to storage sites

• Infrastructure planning

• RD&D and Joint Industry Projects

• Potential co-investment

• Spatial planning

• Resource assessment

• Facilitating access to storage sites

• Infrastructure planning

• RD&D and Joint Industry Projects

• Potential co-investment

Adding value to the sector

• Designing lease competitions

• Selecting projects

• Designing lease competitions

• Selecting projects

Commercial Leasing

Challenges to Accessing Potential CO2

Storage Sites

Competitive Leasing and

Licensing prior to Cessation of

Production

Pre-existing Rights and Liabilities

Co-existing Legal Regimes: Petroleum and

CO2 Storage

Transitional Access

Arrangements: Facilities and

Data

Managing Infrastructure Design and

Deployment

Offshore Facilities

Co-location InteractionsCo-location Interactions

Flight Exclusion

Zones

Flight Exclusion

Zones

Safety Exclusion

Zones

Safety Exclusion

Zones

Seabed

Transmission Grid

Transmission Grid

Pipeline NetworkPipeline Network

CablesCables

Aggregates and Minerals

Aggregates and Minerals

Coast

Cable and Pipe Corridors

Cable and Pipe Corridors

Coastal CrossingsCoastal Crossings InterconnectsInterconnects

Strategic RD&D Objectives

Robust evaluation and selection of storage

proposals

Robust evaluation and selection of storage

proposals

Geostatistics and probability density functions for reservoir

and aquifer site characterisation

Measurement, monitoring and verification techniques

Corrective measures and remedial action

Facilitate optimised CO2

transport and storage infrastructure development

Facilitate optimised CO2

transport and storage infrastructure development

Aquifer injectivity, pressure management, and containment

Pipeline standards and network/cluster design

Offshore CO2 enhanced oil recovery with storage

Non-technical Site Leasing Issues

• DEVELOPMENT

• Access and Transfer Arrangements

• Liability Treatment

• DEVELOPMENT

• Access and Transfer Arrangements

• Liability Treatment

• ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY

• Co-existing Licences/Lease

• Carbon Accounting

• ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY

• Co-existing Licences/Lease

• Carbon Accounting

• APPRAISAL

• Access

• Liability and Interface Conditions

• APPRAISAL

• Access

• Liability and Interface Conditions

• EXPLORATION

• Co-location

• Interface Arrangements

• EXPLORATION

• Co-location

• Interface Arrangements

Saline Formation

Field Extension

Depleted Field

Producing Field

Matching UK CO2 Emissions Sources and

Storage Sites

50 largest UK sources of CO2

Power plant

Petrochemical/ refinery

Steel/ cement works

CO2 concentrations

Condensate fields

Gas fields

Oil fields

UK Continental Shelf storage sites

East Irish Sea Basin

Faroe-Shetland Basin

UK Northern & Central North Sea Basin

UK Southern North Sea Basin

Spatial Planning and Co-location

CCS Cost Reduction Taskforce

Synthesis Report

Development

Overview

In May 2012 Jeff Chapman (Taskforce Chair and Chief Executive, CCSA) was tasked by Charles Hendry (then Minister for Energy) to undertake an exercise to determine cost reduction opportunities for CCS.

Assisted by The Crown Estate and OCCS, the project was established.

In May 2012 Jeff Chapman (Taskforce Chair and Chief Executive, CCSA) was tasked by Charles Hendry (then Minister for Energy) to undertake an exercise to determine cost reduction opportunities for CCS.

Assisted by The Crown Estate and OCCS, the project was established.

Goal

Develop an endorsed series of options (possible development pathways) for cost reduction of CCS projects by 2020 / 2030.

Identify pre-requisites to meet pathways

Develop an endorsed series of options (possible development pathways) for cost reduction of CCS projects by 2020 / 2030.

Identify pre-requisites to meet pathways

• Jeff ChapmanChief Executive

• Ward GoldthorpeProgramme Manager

• Jason GolderSenior Development Manager

• Ian DonaldsonProject Manager

• Phil HareVice President

• Stuart MurraySenior Consultant

• Andy HoustonPrincipal Consultant

• Jonathan OvertonDeputy Head – Strategy & Policy Coordination

• Patrick DixonExpert Chair

Core TaskforceSociete Generale Costain

Gassnova Shell

CCS TLM Statoil

ETI Norton Rose

SSE E.On

Scottish Government CO2DeepStore

Alstom AMEC

Scottish CCS TCM

Air Liquide National Grid Carbon

Scottish Enterprise/Industry

and Power Association

CCSA

Progressive Energy

Additional input sought from:Zurich BNP Paribas

Element Energy RBS

BGS Doosan Babcock

2CO

Approach and Methodology

Following the success of the

Offshore Wind Cost Reduction

Pathways study, a similar approach

was adopted…

Following the success of the

Offshore Wind Cost Reduction

Pathways study, a similar approach

was adopted…

1. Appoint consultants

2. Appoint taskforce

3. Develop model / skeletal framework

4. Conduct workshops

5. Conduct one-to-one discussions

6. Collate and synthesise

7. Publish (Q1 2013)

Approach and Methodology

Model Development

Report drafting

One-to-one

Workshops

Appoint Publish

Emerging Themes

Significant opportunities for cost

reduction identified in all three work

streams:

•Generation and Capture

•Infrastructure and Planning

•Commercial and Finance

Significant opportunities for cost

reduction identified in all three work

streams:

•Generation and Capture

•Infrastructure and Planning

•Commercial and Finance

Emerging Themes

However accessing these savings by the 2020s requires significant progress before that point:

•Strong track record of operational CCS in the UK by 2020

•De-risking of a variety of storage options (DOGF, Aquifer, EOR)

•Long run policy commitment to drive economies of scale, get finance community involved and build up supply chain

However accessing these savings by the 2020s requires significant progress before that point:

•Strong track record of operational CCS in the UK by 2020

•De-risking of a variety of storage options (DOGF, Aquifer, EOR)

•Long run policy commitment to drive economies of scale, get finance community involved and build up supply chain

Emerging Themes

Cost savings will not just happen - we

will need investment in earlier,

higher cost projects to access later

cost savings.

Cost savings will not just happen - we

will need investment in earlier,

higher cost projects to access later

cost savings.

QUESTIONS?

CO2 Injection – UK/Canadian Research

Opportunities

PTRC’s Aquistore Project

Stuart Gilfillan

University of Edinburgh

Who are PTRC?

Not-for-profit corporation founded in 1998

Based in Regina, Saskatchewan

Promote research & development in EOR and CCS

Founded by:

Aquistore Project- Independent research and

monitoring project

Objectives:

- Demonstrate CO2 storage in

deep saline formation is a

safe, workable solution to

reduce greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions

- Develop best methods &

technologies to monitor GHG

- Involve research

institutions, policy makers,

industry, and public

Aquistore Location

CO2 injected into large regional saline aquifer within Williston Basin

Aquistore Overview- Designed to inject 2000 tonnes CO2/day

- $22.3M in sponsorship secured to date

- UKCCSRC - £100,000

- Buffer protection and long-term storage option for SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Carbon Capture Project

- Project split into 2 phases:1. Demonstration & Evaluation

2. CO2 Injection and Monitoring

Phase 1 - Demonstration & Evaluation- Site selection, permits, agreements, community engagement

- Risk assessment, seismic surveys, monitoring programs

- Compilation of existing fluid flow data

- Drilling and evaluation of injection well

- Drilling of observation well

- Water injection test

Project Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment Workshop

- Held in August 2011

- Top risks were identified

SLB Carbon Services Risk

Assessment

- Identify features, events,

processes (FEPs) which

could lead to negative

outcomes

- Solicit expert opinion

Management

- RACI Matrix Chart, Risk

Response Plan

Phase 1 - Project Schedule

Phase 2 - CO2 Injection & Monitoring

- On going monitoring and

observation

- On going community

engagement

- 2013 - Pipeline tie-in CO2 from

Boundary Dam Power Station

- 2014 - World’s first commercial

carbon capture technology

applied to a coal plant and the

sale of CO2 for EOR/storage.

- SaskPower take over operation

Aquistore Subsurface Model

Injection Well Design- Well depth: 3396 m

-Drilled into Pre-Cambrian

basement

-Pressure sensors on outside of

casing and on injection string

-Lower 230m chrome steel and

lower cement CO2 resistant

-3 x 18m cores taken:

Seal (Icebox Shale)

2 in Winnipeg-Deadwood

20 sidewall cores

Also DST, Logging program

Well Evaluation ProgramSide wall Coring

- Porosity and CO2 relative permeability

Logging – TD section

- Gamma Ray/SP/Resistivity/Density/

Neutron

- Sonic Compressional and Dipole Shear

- Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

- Formation Elemental Analysis

- MDT: formation pressure & 3 fluid samples

- MDT: minifrac tests

- Indicate minimum injectivity of 1500t/day

Logging – Cased hole

-Ultra sonic cement imager

Observation Well Design

No further funding for coring or detailed logging

Measurement, Monitoring & Verification

MMV Key Elements:

• Baseline 3D seismic survey

• Time-lapse seismic surveys

• Permanent seismic array

• Real-time pressure & temperature

• Passive seismic

• Downhole fluid sampling

• Time-lapse logging & VSP’s

• Groundwater & Soil Gas

• Surface gravity

• Permanent tiltmeters

• InSAR

• GPS

• Cross-well seismic

MMV is designed for:

1) project/plume monitoring

2) public assurance

3) research objectives

Tiltmeter in the field

3D Seismic Survey

- 3D Baseline Surface Seismic

Survey

- Acquisition : UniQ, acquired

March 2012

- Survey covered ~30sq km

• source line interval: 288m;

source interval: 36m

• receiver line interval: 288m;

receiver interval: 6m

Permanent Seismic Array

Permanent Array 630 geophone

array covering a ~12 sq km area

- Installed: sparse 160m x 160m

grid at a depth of 20m

Public CommunicationsTo Date:

- Kitchen table visits: landowners

- Info sessions: City, RM, MP&MLA

- Open house & Chamber Session

- Media Event with Tour

- Several Tours for Sponsors

- Articles in CCS journals

- Website & other products

Going Forward:

- Tours for Landowners

- Release of results of baseline

- Small Group Presentations to

students/teachers; community

organizations, etc.

- Second Open House

- Second focused Media Event

Project Status

- Land owner/lessee agreements complete, Nov `11

- Environmental Permits received from provincial and federal authorities, Jan `12

- Seismic program complete, March ’12

- Open House held Apr ’12

- Spudded 1st Well, July’12

- Stakeholder Tours, July-Sept’12

- UKCCSRC join project, Aug ‘12

CCS – DECC update20 Sept 2012

Matthew BillsonOffice of Carbon Capture & Storage

2

Key messages

• Next few months will be a busy time for CCS

• Commercialisation Programme (£1bn + annual payments under EMR) on track

• Need to start thinking about “what next”…

A reminder - UK Energy challenges

3

Around a quarter of our plant will close by 2020

Electricity demand could double by 2050

Up to £110bn investment in new generation and transmission to 2020 likely to be required – over double the investment that has come forward in the last

decade.

Need to decarbonise – 80% reduction by 2050

4

CCS – current Government activity

CCS Roadmap – Apr 2012

Commercialisation Programme

• £1bn commitment to portfolio of projects

£125m R&D Programme

• UK CCS Research Centre

Financing & a long term market

• Electricity Market Reform proposals

Regulation and infrastructure

• 3rd party access to CO2 pipelines and storage sites

• Removed barriers to reusing existing (gas etc) pipelines

5

CCS activity in the next few months

Sept – Dec 2012

CCS TINA published

6

Technology Innovation Needs Assessment (TINAs)

CCS TINA

• Published Aug 2012 (http://www.lowcarboninnovation.co.uk/working_togethe r/technology_focus_areas/carbon_capture_and_storage/ )

• Innovation through learning by research: £10-45bn cost reduction

• Mid scenario (1.5GW 2020; 30GW 2050) gives saving of £22bn

Bioenergy TINA• Published Sept 2012• Innovation could save £6-101bn• Mid scenario calculated to be £42bn

7

CCS activity in the next few months

Sept – Dec 2012

CCS TINA published

$1.35bn, 1m/t CO2 pa Quest project go-ahead

£24m Gas CCS pilot (c5-10MW) details announced

Aberthaw 3MWe post-comb pilot operational

DECC £20m CCS Innovation results

Energy Bill 2012

8

Potential financing model

Con

stru

ctio

n P

hase

Financing from project developers / investors

NER300 Capital contribution

CCS Competition up-front capital

CCS Competition funding

Stu

dies

Project developer funding

Ope

ratio

nal P

hase

(ann

ual p

aym

ent)

Income from electricity market

Income from CCS “Contract for Difference”(set at rate to recoup investment

as well as operational costs)

Financing from Green Investment Bank

“£1bn”

9

CCS activity in the next few months

Sept – Dec 2012

CCS TINA published

$1.35bn, 1m/t CO2 pa Quest project go-ahead

£24m Gas CCS pilot (c5-10MW) details announced

Aberthaw 3MWe post-comb pilot operational

DECC £20m CCS Innovation results

Energy Bill 2012

DECC £1bn results

10

Other business…

• Free advice for FP7 applications:– energie@enviros.com

• OCCS Internship– Opportunity to work in heart of Government

– 6-8 week period

– This offer is valid across this current academic year (October 2012 – June 2013) so specific dates are negotiable.

– The placement will be unpaid, although DECC will contribute to travel and accommodation expenses

– Send a cover letter explaining your interest and availability, and CV to aimee.griffiths@decc.gsi.gov.uk , 29 Oct 2012

11

Key messages

• Next few months will be a busy time for CCS

• Commercialisation Programme (£1bn + annual payments under EMR) on track

• Need to start thinking about “what next”…

Any questions?

New Approach to Extend Durability of

Sorbent Powders for Multicycle High

Temperature CO2 Capture in Hydrogen

Production by Steam reformingProduction by Steam reforming

A P Brown, V Dupont, S J Milne

Institute for Materials Research,

Energy and Resources Research Institute

University of Leeds

s.j.milne@leeds.ac.uk

Project Aims

• Produce CO2 sorbent powders containing

additives designed to prevent loss of capture

capacity after repeated high temperature

carbonation and de-carbonation reactionscarbonation and de-carbonation reactions

• Evaluate the powders for use in sorbent

enhanced steam reforming of biomass

Project Details

• Responsive mode (Engineering)

• 18 month proof of principle study

• Commence Nov 1, 2012

• s.j.milne@leeds.ac.uk

Enhanced hydrogen production from

biomass with in-situ CO2 capture using

CaO sorbents

• Steam gasification of biomass

Reforming CnHmOp + (2n-p)H2O = nCO2 + (m/2 + 2n – p)H2

If reaction at is coupled to CO capture (instantaneous)If reaction at is coupled to CO2 capture (instantaneous)

Shift chemical equilibrium

Increase H2 yield N H Florin, A T Harris Chemical

Engineering Science 63, 287 (2008)

CaO sorbent:

(i) decreases temperature of high H2 yield ( to 550-600 °C)

(ii) H2 yield increased by ~ 15%

(iii) H2 purity, >90 vol %

V Dupont

Sorbent Powders

for Multicycle Sorbent Enhanced Steam

Reforming (SESR)

• Calcium oxide carbonate 500-700 °C CaO + CO2→ CaCO3

regenerate 750-950 °C CaCO3 → CaO + CO2

• Sodium zirconate Na2ZrO3 + CO2 = Na2CO3 + ZrO2

High Molar Conversion during carbonation (initial)

MO + CO2 → MCO3

High Durability after repeated regeneration at high temperatures

MCO3 → MO +CO2

Durability Problems

Sintering of Ceramic Particles

• High Temperature Regeneration ( ≤ 950 °C):

diffusion, mass transport

• Pore shrinkage (Densification)

Particle/grain growth

• Reduction in surface area

• Reduction in CO2 Capture Capacity (unreacted CaO)

• Onset temperatures and extent of sintering depend

on: particle composition

particle size (and agglomeration)

atmosphere

Sintering Mechanisms

Randall M. German

Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences, 35:263–305, 2010

Methods to Improve Durability

• Replenish sorbent

• Steam reactivation

• Add second phase refractory particles

Additives to Suppress Sintering

of CaO

• Second phase particles

Al2O3, SiO2, ZrO2 20-30 wt% Ca12Al14O33 (mayenite)

• Physical separation of sorbent particles• Physical separation of sorbent particles

Inhibit sintering of sorbent phase

Improve multicycle durability

• Further room for improvement, especially at high calcination temperatures

Proposed Alternative Approach

• Additive which undergoes volume expansion after

decarbonation (800-950 °C)

• Partially stabilised zirconia, PSZ

ZrO -Y O (1-2 % Y O )ZrO2-Y2O3 (1-2 % Y2O3)

• Tetragonal- Monoclinic phase transition on cooling:

volume expansion, crack initiation through sintered

sorbent

• Open up pore channels, expose new surfaces for

gas/solid reaction

Phase Diagram: ZrO2-Y2O3

Microcracked Alumina

Toughened CeramicsTune Tt-m to ~ 600 °C by varying Y2O3

Expansion between calcination and absorption

temperatures

Schematic Powder Bed: before sintering

PSZ

additive

Spray Drying

MicrocrackingIndividual CaO

particle/grain

Calcination, sintering

800-950 ° CTet-Mon on cooling

600 ° C

Powder Compositions

• CaO + PSZ

• Na2 ZrO3 + PSZ

• Micron powders

• Challenges

interdiffusion CaO and PSZ? (Al2O3 coating)

initiate cracking at elevated temperatures?

Objectives

• A. ----Optimise PSZ and sorbent particle

properties for maximising microcrack formation

in CaO and Na2ZrO3: achieve high molar

conversion ratios for 950 C calcinationconversion ratios for 950 C calcination

temperatures, using PSZ loadings 10-20 vol%.

• B. Exploit spray drying to retain high uniformity of

PSZ particle distributions and use organic

sacrificial templates to control granule internal

pore sizes, total volume and pore connectivity.

ctd

• C. Determine, and understand, relationships

between CO2 uptake capacity, durability and

degree of PSZ phase transformation in the

sorbent matrix at different densities sorbent matrix at different densities

(regeneration temperatures).

• D. Examine effects of impurity gasses and

hydration steps on multi-cycle capacity and

durability.

ctd

• E. In parallel, outside the project, evaluate the

performance of the best powder in sorption

enhanced steam reforming being developed

by Dupont (CI) to produce H2 from waste by Dupont (CI) to produce H2 from waste

biomass; compare to performance of a

CaO:Ca12Al14O33 sorbent presently being used

in this role.

Thank-you

Feasibility of a wetting layer absorption carbon capture process based on

chemical solvents

Martin Sweatman, Ashleigh Fletcher, Siddharth PatwardhanDepartment of Chemical and Process Engineering,

University of Strathclyde

Stefano Brandani, Xianfeng FanSchool of Engineering

University of Edinburgh

Project Overview

• EP/J019704/1 (Strathclyde) and EP/J019720/1 (Edinburgh)• £1.23M award in total – 4 PDRAs for 2.5 to 3 years

Edinburgh StrathclydeStefano Brandani Xianfeng Fan Martin Sweatman Ashleigh Fletcher Siddharth Patwardhan

• Post-combustion CO2 capture• Feasibility study – fundamentals, new concepts and materials• Green and cheap• ‘Wetting Layer Absorption’: attempts to combine aspects of adsorption and absorption

• Try to increase interfacial area of standard absorption process

• Impregnated sorbents are not new – novelty of WLA is optimising solvent partial pressure

• Clearly limited to sub-saturated solvent partial pressures

• Could potentially use physical or chemical solvents

• EP/F061285/1 looked at physical solvents; this project examines chemical solvents (amines)

• Clearly, there will be issues with leaching – will need to recycle solvent

Wetting layer absorption for carbon capture (M.B. Sweatman, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, p3907 (2010)).

1 2 3

Amine Impregnated Sorbents(reviewed by Bollini, Didas and Jones, J. Mat. Chem. 21, 15100 (2011))

• Physically impregnated sorbents:o Easy to make through solvent assisted wet impregnationo Typically high working capacity – depends on amine loadingo Variable kinetics – depends on amine loading and distributiono CO2 recovery via TSA – can be slower due to thermal transporto Probably lower regeneration penalty than amine scrubbing tower (no water)o Creates ‘tacky’ particleso Amine leaching can be a problem

Amine Impregnated Sorbents(reviewed by Bollini, Didas and Jones, J. Mat. Chem. 21, 15100 (2011))

• Chemically impregnated sorbents:o Moderate to high working capacity – depends on amine loadingo Typically good kinetics – amine usually confined to surfaceo CO2 recovery via TSA or steam – generally quickero Generally lower regeneration penalty than amine scrubbing tower (no water)o Amine leaching much less of a problemo Hazardous and expensive to make – several steps involving harsh chemicals

Generally good resistance to water vapour, and somet imes steamVariable resistance to oxidationResistance to other impurities generally unknown

Wetting layer absorption – proof of concept

• Wet impregnation of porous materials is well known; need to test vapour impregnation

• Performed basic test of vapour impregnation of AC with propylamine• 4.5 mmol propylamine/gram AC (21% propylamine by weight)• CO2 purge for 30 sec at 1 bar• 0.9 mmol CO 2/gram AC = 0.2 mol CO 2 per mol N• Vapour impregnation compares well with wet impregnation

• Quick estimate based on TEPA at 1% of saturation pressure suggests 8 litres of solvent will be recycled per 30 min cycle for 1GW power station

propylamine AC

CO2

propylamine vapour

impregnated AC

Our project• WP1: Synthesis and characterisation of materials and solvents (SP, AF, PDRA1 )

o Preparation of porous templated silicas with range of pore sizes

o Preparation of ‘green’ porous silicas via bioinspired routes

o Preparation and purchase of porous carbons with range of pore sizeso Purchase of range of amines

o Characterisation of all materials and solvents

• WP2: CO2 adsorption experiments (AF, SB, PDRA1, PDRA2)o Fast screening of CO2 capacity and kinetics of porous template/amine systems using

Zero Length Columno Detailed analysis of promising combinations using IGA

� Selectivity, cycling, impurities, TSA/PSA recovery of CO2

• WP3: Molecular modelling for pore-level understanding (MS, PDRA3)o Pore-level understanding to help interpret and guide experiments; effect of

� Pore size, reaction constant, surface type, temperature, solvent partial pressure� Capillary condensation and wetting of solvent

• WP4: Feasibility of cyclic process (SB, XF, PDRA4)o Pre-loading solvent, recovery and recycling of leached solvent

o Recovery of CO2, TSA/PSA + novel method

o Mass transfer data from dual-piston apparatus

o Process modelling

Thankyou for listening

Thankyou EPSRC

Adsorption Materials and Processes for

Carbon Capture from Gas-Fired

Power Plants: AMPGas

(EPSRC: EP/J02077X/1)

PI: Prof. Stefano Brandani (University of Edinburgh)

Dr. Hyungwoog Ahn, Dr. M. Chiara Ferrari

CoI:Prof. Eleanor Campbell (EaStCHEM, University of Edinburgh)

CoI: Prof. Paul Wright (EaStCHEM, University of St Andrews)

CoI: Dr. Humphrey Yiu (Heriot-Watt University)

Objectives:

� Develop novel design and synthesis routes for adsorbent

materials for carbon capture from flue gases of gas-fired power

plants

� Develop methodologies for rapid screening of materials based on

equilibrium and kinetic properties

� Develop rapid thermal swing cycles to reduce plant size

� Predict the performance of an integrated adsorption carbon

capture process coupled to a gas fired power plant

� Interact closely with stakeholders and end users to define case

studies and enhance the uptake of the results of the research.

Challenges:

� Low CO2 concentration in the flue gas (4% by volume)

� Conventional amine processes have a large energy penalty and the

presence of high concentration of O2 leads to high amine deactivation

rates

� Not possible to consider pressure swing adsorption for adsorbent

regeneration (due to very low partial pressure of CO2)

� Need highly selective materials and regeneration by thermal cycling

1. Design of adsorbents for CO2 capture from very dilute gas

streams

2. Evaluation of adsorbents

3. Development of bench scale prototype of rotary wheel

adsorber and detailed dynamic model

The Project

Achievements in ‘Innovative gas separations for

carbon capture’

Optimised adsorption of CO2 at 0.1 bar, 303 K over microporous solids

•selectivity in small pore MOFs by functionalisation

•uptake in a rigid zeolite structure (ZK-5) by cation exchange

•uptake and selectivity in a flexible zeolite structure (Rho)

K

Li

Na

Paul Wright

Functionalised Metal Organic Framework

All solids hydrophobic

Functionalising with amine increases CO2 uptake (by chemoselectivity)

Adding nitro groups increases selectivity for CO2 (by molecular sieving)

J. P. S. Mowat, P. A. Wright et al. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 50, 10844-58

CO2 uptake using mesoporous silica

Mesoporous silica properties:

High surface area

� high functional group

loading

High pore volume (tunable)

� Potentially high CO2 storage

capacity

Humphrey Yiu

CO2 adsorption isotherm

CO2 adsorption capacity of

functionalised mesoporous silica can

be up to 1.4 mmol g-1

(�, functionalised with APTES

aminopropyltriethoxysilane)

Remarkably, higher adsorption of CO2

(2.13 mmol g-1) was recorded in

presence of water.

“N efficiency” ≈ 0.7

surface modification of porous carbon with organic bases

Activated carbon

Impregnation with

polyethyleneimine

Surface

oxid

ation and

subse

quent gra

fting w

ith

polyethyle

neimin

e

Surface activation in

ammoniac plasma

Direct grafting with diamines

Conversion of terminal NH2

groups to stronger bases

(amidines, guanidines)

Eleanor Campbell

Functionalised Carbon Nanotubes for CO2 capture

(CNT frameworks)

Eleanor CampbellEPSRC Feasibility Study: Nanotubes for Carbon Capture

Evaluation

Zero Length Column technique: use of small quantities of materials to

screen for the most promising materials (at 3-7% CO2)

Most promising materials upscaled and tested with PSA and ESA/TSA

Design and construction of bench scale system

(collaboration with Howden)

demonstration of technology feasibility.

1GW plant produces 380 tonnes CO2 per hour.

Require fast cycling time to reduce amount of adsorbent required

Stefano Brandani

Prototype System

Gas-FACTS: Gas - Future Advanced Capture Technology Options Jon Gibbins University of Edinburgh Mathieu Lucquiaud University of Edinburgh Hyungwoong Ahn University of Edinburgh Mohamed Pourkashanian University of Leeds Paul Fennell Imperial College London John Oakey Cranfield University Chris Wilson University of Sheffield Prashant Valluri University of Edinburgh Hannah Chalmers University of Edinburgh Martin Trusler Imperial College London Kevin Hughes University of Leeds Meihong Wang Cranfield University Pericles Pilidis Cranfield University Geoff Maitland Imperial College London Chemical Eng and Amparo Galindo Imperial College London George Jackson Imperial College London Claire Adjiman Imperial College London Nina Thornhill Imperial College London

Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study

Wind and thermal generation in January 2030 with the UK wind patterns from 2000

Amount of time power demand is less than GW shown

Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study

Estimates for 2030

Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study

~ 10 GW of baseload available with 43GW of wind

Amount of time power demand is less than GW shown

Dispatchable (infill/backup) generation capacity

Wind

Estimates for 2030

Nuclear and wind competing for load some of the time

* http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/nuclear.aspx

16 GW of UK nuclear capacity*

~ 30 GW of baseload available if no wind

Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study

Estimates for 2030

Wind – 43 GW (+10GW baseload) No wind – extra 20GW baseload 7GW less LF>5% ~10GW less LF<5% (and 43GW less wind)

Load factor distribution for infill power generation

0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Some capacity doing ‘backup’

A lot of ‘infill’ capacity doing serious amounts

of energy generation

Original curves from Poyry, Impact of intermittency: how wind variability could change the shape of the British and Irish electricity markets, Summary report, July 2009, http://www.poyry.com/linked/group/study, but derived numbers are estimates from reading the graph above with assumed baseload from previous slides.

Potential non-baseload CCS capacities?

Load factor Estimates for 2030

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Fuel costs Carbon costs Non-fuel variable costs Fixed costs

ILLUSTRATIVE COST BREAKDOWN FOR UK GENERATION OPTIONS

Based on Redpoint: Decarbonising the GB power sector: evaluating investment pathways, generation patterns and emissions through to 2030, A Report to the Committee on Climate Change, September 2009.

2008 capital costs, assumed £30/tCO2 carbon price, gas price £12.5/MWhth, coal price £6.25/MWhth. 10% interest rate

£/M

Wh

If wind or nuclear is run as fill in power

then costs go up even more than for fossil

If CCGT+CCS is costed at 20% LF then 63% LF electricity at very low

cost is not being used.

Generating Technology and Load Factor

Conclusions for future gas CCS plants Electricity demand is variable and will remain so – but unclear Wind output will always be variable – but no agreed data to properly address the question available in the public domain A lot of electrical energy is required to fill the gap, at a range of load factors – not clear how much could be electricity storage Quite a lot of low-load factor ‘backup’ power is also required 43 GW of wind + ~ 7GW of 20-90% LF + ~10GW of backup (~60GW capacity in total) replaces ~20GW of baseload capacity (estimated using data from the Poyry 2030 scenario) Operating fossil flexibly with and without CCS important Recovering the capital involved at reduced LF is likely to be very uncertain – low capital cost important

~ HRSG

Advanced Post

Combustion Capture

Gas turbine

Air inlet

Exhaust Gas Recycle - EGR

CO2 Transfer & Recycle - CTR

Gas in

Low carbon

electricity out

Decarbonised flue gas out

Decarbonised flue gas out CO2 transfer

Water/steam injection

Gas turbine capture systems

Gas-FACTS: Gas - Future Advanced Capture Technology Options

Cranfield, Edinburgh, Imperial, Leeds & Sheffield Edinburgh: Absorber instrumentation and control,

modelling activities Imperial: Properties of CO2-capture solvents for natural gas; real-time control. Leeds: Experimental measurement and modelling of amine degradation. Sheffield: Gas turbines running component and engine tests, HATS and EGR Cranfield: Membrane prescrubber evaluation and process/technoeconomic modelling.

WP1 Future roles for natural gas CCS plants

WP2 Gas turbine options for

improved CCS system performance

2.1 High humidity operation

2.2 Exhaust gas recycle

2.3 CO2 recycle

WP3 Advanced post combustion solvent capture for future gas power systems

3.1 Gas-specific solvents

3.2 Flexible capture systems

3.3 Advanced testing

WP4 Integration and whole systems performance assessment

WP5 Impact delivery and expert interaction activities

UKCCSRC Pilot-Scale Advanced Capture Technology (PACT) Facilities - Beighton

Amine Post Combustion

Capture Plant (150 KW)

Coal

S

B

C

G

Control Units & System

Integration

Oxygen

Coal

Biomass

AIR

Natural Gas

Gas Turbine APU & Micro-turbine <150Kw

Oxy/air-Solid

Fuels CTF with EGR 250KW

Coal – Biomass

blend Fuels 50KW

Coal – Biomass Air/Oxy

FB Reactor 150KW

Gas Mixer Facilities

Up to 250 KW

O

L

Planned IGCC

Reactor (200 KW)

R

Gas Cleaning

and Shift

System Monitoring

Via Internet

R

E

E

M

A E

E

The Centre is funding commissioning and operating support for UKCCRSC-PACT for next 5 years, costing 810k, and is also offering support worth up to 630k for UKCCSRC members and other academics to undertake new research activities using UKCCSRC-PACT facilities, to complement £2.9M funding from DECC to move and set up equipment provided by RWE Npower.

Planned Gas CCS meetings

Sheffield

24 October - RAPID, EPSRC Gas CCS programme

25 October - Gas-FACTS at PACT offices

Computational Modelling and Optimisation of Carbon Capture Reactors

Prof S. Gu1, Prof K.H. Luo2, Dr L.M. Armstrong2, Mr J.J. Cooke2, Mr N.

Booth3 and Dr M. Dubal3

1. School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United

Kingdom (Tel: +441234 755277; Fax: +441234 754685; Email address: s.gu@cranfield.ac.uk)

2. Energy Technology Research Group, School of Engineering Sciences, University of

Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom

3. E.ON New Build and Technology Centre, Ratcliffe, Nottinghamshire.

Proposed Research

Answer the EPSRC call on “Carbon capture and storage for natural gas power stations” by forming a close partnership between Cranfield University, the University of Southampton, and E.ON

• Electricity generation represents approximately a third of the UK’s total CO2

emissions.

• The reduction of CO2 emissions arising from power generation will play an essential part to meet the UK’s ambitious target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050

• The proposed research has a strong focus on industrial needs by integrating with the industrial partner’s existing activities for developing CCS technologies suitable for commercial gas power plants.

• One of the priorities is to develop CCS technologies suitable for natural gas power stations, because such power plants are increasingly used worldwide.

• E.ON UK is generating around 10% of the UK's electricity and the majority of its 9 power stations are gas powered.

• E.ON Group is committed to reducing its CO2

emission by 50% by 2030 (1990 baseline) and has setup a dedicated CCS unit to address the technical challenges.

E.ON's Staudinger coal-fired power plant, in Grosskrotzenburg, Germany.

Proposed Research

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves separating the CO2 from emissions so it can be transported and stored away from the atmosphere

• E.ON will provide experimental data forvalidation.

• The EPSRC project will allow us to build a fulltest rig to validate the results and also havepost-doc researchers to join our team to workwith EON for more advanced modelling andlarge scale simulation.

• Activities at Southampton and Cranfield will mainlyinvolve CFD simulations, with the development ofcode and models.

• Small-scale experiments will be performed tovalidate CFD simulations.

• These will involve counter-current gas-liquid flowwithin packing sections.

• The most commercially viable approach to be fitted in natural gas power plants is the post-combustion capture which absorbs CO2 from the flue gas using a chemical reaction - also known as scrubbing.

• E.ON has been actively pursuing this area and will be the focus of this research.

This research specifically targets natural gas power plants, which have a lower concentration of CO2,

approx. 4% compared to 13% from coal-fired plants. Therefore, it is harder to extract, representing the most challenging case for CCS.

Amine Absorption

CO2

Amine

Clean gas

CO2

stored

Heat

Absorber Stripper

Structured Packing

a) Channel scaleb) Close viewc) Details of wall texture

• Corrugated metal sheets

• Structures at various scales

• Large wetted area

• Large liquid-gas interfacial area

• Faster reaction

Raynal & Royon-Lebeaud (2007)

Challenges

CFD modelling of CCS is very challenging – research is needed to develop models

To date, no accurate CFD modelling of the whole reactor has been achieved, mainly due to the followinginherent difficulties:

• Multi-scale problems:

o Micro-scale (liquid flow along packing walls requires microscopic analysis, due to surface texture)o Meso-scale (gas-flow dynamics between packing sheets)o Macro-scale (Full-scale reactor modelling )

Resolving all three scales using a single mesh, even for a lab-scale reactor, is very challenging

• Multi-phase modelling is required to capture the flow behaviours between the gases and the solvent. Thisintroduces problems with tracking the interface.

• Current multi-phase models do not account for absorption and reactions across an interface. Modelsneed to be developed to incorporate this essential element of CCS simulations

At the micro-scale

Improve liquid distributionover plates of differentdesigns and flow controls

αi

Realistic plate distributionsneed to consider the anglesof the channel walls

Volume of Fluid method (VOF) can track the surface of the liquid to determine the surfaceareas achieved for the different flow control measures.

Some results so far

The VOF model was used to determine the effect of surface texture on wetted area within packed columns

• At the micro-scale flow can be approximated by gravity-driven flow downan inclined plane.

• Laminar, two-phase, isothermal simulations were performed• Mass transfer and reactions were ignored in the present results to reducethe complexity of the simulations.

Some results so far

A significant increase in the wetted area was observed with the use of the textured plate

Interfacial Height Rel = 134.44 Ɵ = 60o (left: Smooth plate,

right: Textured plate)Interfacial Velocity Rel = 179.26 Ɵ = 60

o (left: Smooth plate, right: Textured plate)

• Larger wetted areas should increase heat andmass transfer within structured packing

• However, further investigations are required toensure that other effects do not negateimprovements caused by the increased surfacearea

Some results so far

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 50 100 150 200 250

Spe

cific

wet

ted

area

A

w/A

t [-

]

Reynolds number Rel [-]

Smooth plateTextured plate

At the meso-scale

• Determine influences that affect pressure drop

• Different considerations include (Fig: a,b):

• channel openings (αo),• channel heights (hc) and• inclination angles from the horizontal (αi)

• Pressure drop information can be obtained:

• between the large arrays of packingsheets (Fig: c) and

• in smaller periodic RepresentativeElementary Units (REUs) (Fig: d)

• Frictional pressure is the leading contributor tototal pressure drop but other regions such as“elbows” and wall presence must be consideredtoo.

Some results so far

A periodic model was used to determine the pressure drop within a range of channel geometries and inclination angles from the horizontal.

Velocity vectors through the centre of the element inclination angle for a) 60o, b) 50o, c) 45o and d) 40o

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) helps to determine information about:

•Flow distributions•Flow velocities•Pressure drops

Some results so far

Total pressure drop comprises of the loss of pressure due to friction as well as directional change

Pressure drop within REUs represent frictional. Adding apublished correlation for loss due to directional change to thesimulated data gives a good comparison with theexperimental data.

A correlation is needed that predicts the frictional loss according to factors such as channel height,channel opening angle and inclination angle.

Some results so far

Genetic algorithms determine correlations that can predict the pressure drop based on different channel geometries and inclination angles from the horizontal.

Frictional loss coefficient correlation is based on the Ergun-like correlation where pressure losses due to both laminar and turbulent flows are considered:

Reynolds number is based on channel height and effective gas velocity, which relates the superficial gasvelocity to the structured packing porosity and inclination angle:

Genetic algorithm was run using the extensive geometry including different channel heights, opening angles information and inclination angles to determine the coefficients for the constants, C1 and C2.

Some results so far

Maximum error between correlated data and simulated data from this work and the literature was 12.5%, better than any previous attempts at 18-20%

Some results so far

Correlation predicts the data well for a) inclination angles, b-d) channel heights and opening angles

Some results so far

Surface plots suggest optimal geometries with minimised pressure drops

Some results so far

Simulation of the optimal geometry is then carried out and agrees well with the simulated data

(N.B. Geometry was not previously simulated so the data was not used in original data set)

Next step

• Incorporate mass exchange between the gas and liquid in a wetted wallcolumn

• Continue CFD simulations and optimisation techniques at the micro-scaleto improve surface area of liquid

• Consider mass exchange on different micro-scale plates• Inclusion of reaction kinetics in order to simulate chemically enhancedabsorption

• Carry out meso-scale simulations with the presence of flow control toimprove gas circulation between the sheets

• Porous media models at macro-scale simulation• Look into alternative models which reduce the complexity of thesimulations, whilst maintaining accuracy

• Build test rig for absorption and desorption processes• Modelling and optimization of pilot plants

Thank you

Questions?