Exhibit (TJB 4)

8/9/2019 Exhibit (TJB 4)

1/48


2/48


3/48 Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan 2007 3

Table of Contents I. Message to Stakeholders _______________________________________________4 A. 10-year Milestone for the DOE Carbon Sequestration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

II. Program Overview____________________________________________________6 A. Program Highlights and Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

B. Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

C. Program Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

D. Program Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

E. Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

III. Challenges __________________________________________________________12 A. Global Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

B. Cost-effective Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

C. Geographical Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

D. Permanence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

E. Monitoring, Mitigation, and Verication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 F. Integration and Long-term Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

G. Permitting and Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

H. Public Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

I. Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

IV. Technology Development Efforts __________________________________________ 16 A. Core R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

1. CO 2 Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2. Carbon Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3. Monitoring, Mitigation, and Verication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4. Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5. Breakthrough Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

B. Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2. RCSP Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3. Characterization Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4. Validation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5. Deployment Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

C. NETL Ofce of Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 D. Supporting Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

1. International Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2. Systems and Benets Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3. Interagency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4. Education and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

For More Information ___________________________________________________46


4/484 Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan 2007

I. Message toStakeholders Economic growth is closely tied to

energy availability and consumption,particularly lower-cost fossil fuels.The use of these fossil fuels resultsin the release of carbon dioxide(CO2), which is widely believed tocontribute to global climate change.Balancing the economic value offossil fuels with the environmentalconcerns associated with fossilfuel use is a difcult challenge. Toretain fossil fuels as a viable worldenergy source, carbon capture andstorage (CCS) technologies must playa central role. By cost-effectivelycapturing CO 2 before it is emitted tothe atmosphere and then permanentlystoring or sequestering it, fossil fuelscan be used in a carbon constrainedworld and without constrainingeconomic growth.

The global nature of CO 2 emissionsis illustrated in Figure 1 and shows

that total world CO 2 emissions areexpected to increase signicantly by2030. Absent binding constraints,CO 2 emissions in Organizationfor Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) countrieswhich include the United States, mostof Europe, Australia, Korea, NewZealand and Japanare expectedto increase at about 1.1 percent peryear through 2030. CO 2 emissionsin non-OECD countries outside

Europe and Eurasiaincludingfossil fuel-rich China and Indiaareexpected to grow at 3.0 percent peryear, in line with strong economicgrowth. As a point of reference, theU.S. emitted about 6 billion metrictons of CO 2 in 2005, accounting forabout 22 percent of total world CO 2 emissions.

On a global scale, CCS technologieshave the potential to reduce overallclimate change mitigation costsand increase exibility in reducinggreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.According to the 2005 report,Carbon Dioxide Capture andStorage, by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC),the application of CCS technologiesin GHG mitigation portfolios couldreduce the costs of stabilizing CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphereby 30 percent or more compared toscenarios where CCS technologiesare not deployed. Furthermore,a particularly benecial aspect ofcertain CCS technologies is thattheir component parts carboncapture, transportation, and storage can utilize technologies adaptedfrom other commercial industries,enhancing the availability and costcompetitiveness of CCS technologiesas viable mitigation options.

The Global Energy TechnologyStrategy Program (GTSP) apublic and private sector researchcollaboration comprised of scientistsfrom Battelle, the U.S. Departmentof Energy (DOE), Pacic Northwest

National Laboratory (PNNL), andthe Joint Global Change ResearchInstitute (a partnership betweenPNNL and the University ofMaryland) has identied near-term, medium-term, and long-termbenets associated with CCS. In thenear term, CCS technologies willallow many industries includingelectricity generation, rening,chemical production, and steeland cement manufacturing tochart a viable path forward into acarbon-constrained world. In themedium term, CCS technologieswill facilitate a smoother transitionof the global economy to a lowGHG emissions future. In the longterm, CCS will make valuablecommodities like electricity andhydrogen cheaper than they wouldbe if such technologies were notavailable.

DOE is taking a leadershiprole in the development of CCStechnologies. Through its CarbonSequestration Program (Program) managed within the Ofce ofFossil Energy (FE) and implementedby the National Energy TechnologyLaboratory (NETL) DOE is

Figure 1. World CO2 Emissions by Region

I. MESSAGE TO STAKEHOLDERS



developing both core and supportingtechnologies through which CCSwill become an effective andeconomically viable option forreducing CO 2 emissions. TheProgram works in concert withother programs within FE that aredeveloping technologies integralto coal-fueled power generationwith carbon capture: advancedintegrated gasication combinedcycle (IGCC), advanced turbines,fuel cells, and advanced research.Successful research and development(R&D) will enable carbon controltechnologies to overcome thevarious technical, economic, andsocial challenges, including cost-

effective CO 2 capture, long-termstability (permanence) of CO 2 inunderground formations, monitoringand verication, integration withpower generation systems, and publicacceptance.

The overall goal of the CarbonSequestration Program is to develop,by 2012, fossil fuel conversionsystems that achieve 90 percentCO2 capture with 99 percent storagepermanence at less than a 10 percentincrease in the cost of energyservices. Reaching this goal requiresan integrated research, development,and deployment program linkingfundamental advances in CCS topractical advances in technologiesamenable to extended commercialuse. The technologies developedin this Program will also serve astest components in the FutureGenInitiative, aimed at building the rstpower plant in the world to integratepermanent carbon storage with coal-to-energy conversion and hydrogenproduction.

A. 10-year Milestonefor the DOE CarbonSequestration ProgramThe year 2007 marks the 10-yearanniversary of the DOEs Carbon

Sequestration Program. Launched in1997 as a small-scale research effortto ascertain the technical viability ofCCS, the Program has grown into amulti-faceted research, development,and deployment initiative that aimsto provide the means by whichfossil fuels can continue to be usedfor power generation in a carbon-constrained world. The rst 10 yearshave significantly advanced theknowledge base pertaining to CO 2

separation, geologic and terrestrialstorage, regulations and permitting,and process economics. Muchwork remains, however, to enablethe large-scale deployment ofCCS technologies. In particular,extended eld tests are required tofully characterize potential storagesites and demonstrate the long-termstorage of sequestered carbon toachieve cost-effective integrationwith power plant systems. Lookingforward, it is also important torecognize CCS as more than justan end-of-process emissions controltechnology. CCS technologiesrepresent critical elements inthe entire energy supply picture,providing CO 2 capture and storagesolutions that will enable sustainedfossil fuel conversion and offer aresource recovery pathway thatwill facilitate greater recoveryof domestic oil, natural gas, andcoalbed methane.

This document describes theTechnology Roadmap andProgram Plan that wil l guide theCarbon Sequestration Program in2007 and beyond. An overviewof the Program and the keyaccomplishments in its 10-yearhistory are presented as well as thechallenges confronting deploymentand successful commercialization ofcarbon sequestration technologies.The research pathways that will beused to achieve Program goals andinformation on key contacts andweb links related to the Program areincluded.

This document is intended to be a

valuable tool in engaging interestedstakeholders. We invite readers tocontact any of the persons listed onthe inside back cover with comments,concerns, or suggestions.

I. MESSAGE TO STAKEHOLDERS



II. ProgramOverviewThe DOEs Carbon SequestrationProgram leverages applied researchwith eld demonstrations to assessthe technical and economic viabilityof carbon capture and storage as aGHG mitigation option.

A. Program Highlightsand AccomplishmentsSince its inception 10 years ago,the Program has been moving CCS

technology forward to enable itscost-effective use in meeting anyfuture GHG emissions reductionrequirements. The rst decade hassignicantly advanced the knowledgebase pertaining to CO 2 separation,geologic and terrestrial sequestration,regulations and permitting, andprocess economics.

The Program is a true governmentsuccess story. What began as an ideahas resulted in international supportof CCS as a leading mitigationoption for reducing GHG emissionsto the atmosphere. Major Programaccomplishments over its 10-year lifeinclude:

Carbon Sequestration Atlas. TheCarbon Sequestration Atlas ofthe United States and Canada developed by NETL, theRegional Carbon SequestrationPartnerships (RCSPs), and theNational Carbon SequestrationDatabase and GeographicalInformation System (NATCARB) contains information onstationary sources for CO 2 emissions, geologic formations

with sequestration potential,and terrestr ial ecosystemswith potential for enhancedcarbon uptake, al l referencedto their geographic location toenable matching sources and

sequestration sites. An interactiveversion of the Atlas is availablethrough the NATCARB website(www.natcarb.org). The Atlas canbe downloaded at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/carbon_seq/ atlas/index.html.

CO 2 Capture. The Program hasconducted research into solvent,sorbent, membrane, and oxy-combustion systems that, uponsuccessful development, will becapable of capturing greater than90 percent of the ue gas CO 2 at a signicant cost reductionwhen compared to state-of-the-art, amine-based capturesystems. Through research andsystems analysis over the pastyears, potential cost reductionsof 30-45 percent have beenidentified for the capture of

CO 2. In addition, ionic liquidmembranes and absorbents arebeing developed for capture ofCO 2 from power plants. Ionicliquid membranes have beendeveloped at NETL for pre-combustion applications thatsurpass polymers in terms of CO 2 selectivity and permeability atelevated temperatures. In relatedDOE-funded academic research,signicant progress has beenmade in developing ionic liquidabsorbents for post-combustionapplications that show increasingbreakthrough potential for morecost effective capture of CO 2 fromue gas.

CO 2 Storage . Program effortsin geologic and terrestrial CO 2 storage have led to a betterunderstanding of sequestrationpotential and the ability tocharacterize capillary forces

that immobilize CO 2 in the porespaces of a formation alsoknown as residual CO 2 trapping in CO 2 fate and transport models.Furthermore, the Program hasbeen a leader in efforts to enhanceterrestrial ecosystems as carbonsequestration sites and to calibratemodels for quantifying theamount of carbon stored.

Monitoring, Mitigation , andVerification (MM&V). Fieldprojects have demonstrated theability to map CO 2 injectedinto an underground formationat a much higher resolutionthan previously anticipatedand confirmed the ability ofperfluorocarbon tracers totrack CO 2 movement througha reservoir. DOE-sponsoredresearch has also led to thedevelopment of the U-Tubesampler, which was developed forand successfully deployed at theFrio test site in Texas. This noveltool is used to obtain geochemicalsamples of both the water and gasportions of downhole samplesat in situ pressure. The datacollected from this tool has ledto a better understanding ofthe coupled hydrogeochemicalconditions affecting CO 2 storage

in brine lled formations.

Systems Analysis. NETLsOfce of Systems, Analysis, andPlanning (OSAP) has conductedinnovative assessments of CO 2 capture and separations processes.The OSAP work in this area hasincreased understanding of the

II. PROGRAM OVERVIEW



issues surrounding integration ofCO2 capture systems with differentfuel conversion systems, leading tothe identication of improvementopportunities with the potentialto signicantly reduce costs.Two recently completed systemsanalyses are documented in thefollowing reports: CO 2 Capture

from Existing Coal-Fired PowerPlants and Cost and Performance

Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants .(Reports at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/ Resources/Analysis/)

B. Program Structure

The Carbon Sequestration Programencompasses two main elements:Core R&D and Demonstration and

Deployment . Figure 2 shows howthese elements are linked. The CoreR&D element converts technology

needs in several focus areas intotechnology solutions that can thenbe demonstrated and deployed in theeld. Lessons learned from the eldtests are fed back to the Core R&Delement to guide future research anddevelopment.

Core R&D involves laboratoryand pilot-scale research a imed atdeveloping new technologies andnew systems for GHG mitigation.The Core R&D portfolio includescost-shared, industry-led technologydevelopment projects, researchgrants, and research conductedthrough NETLs Ofce of Researchand Development (ORD). TheCore R&D effort encompasses vefocus areas: CO 2 capture; carbonstorage; monitoring, mitigation, andverication; non-CO 2 greenhouse gascontrol; and breakthrough concepts.

The rst three Core R&D researchareas track the life cycle of a CCSsystem: CO 2 is first captured,then it is stored (sequestered) orconverted to a benign or usefulcarbon-based product, and finally

it is monitored to ensure that itremains stored, with appropriatemitigation actions taken as needed.The fourth category, non-CO 2 greenhouse gas control, primar ilyinvolves the capture and reuse ofmethane emissions from energyproduction and conversion systemssuch as the capture and use of coalmine ventilation air methane. Thefth area, breakthrough concepts,targets novel concepts with a highdegree of technical uncertainty andthose with the potential to expandthe applicability of CCS beyondconventional stationary sourceemissions. Promising breakthrough


Figure 2. U.S. DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Development



Figure 3. Energy Recovery and Conversion Relationships

concepts being pursued includeionic liquids and microporous metalorganic frameworks (MOFs) forcapturing CO 2.

The Demonstration and Deploymentelement of the Carbon SequestrationProgram is designed to demonstratethe viability of CCS technologiesat a scale large enough to overcomereal and perceived infrastructurechallenges. Technologies will betested in the field to identify andeliminate technical and economicbarriers to commercialization. Suchan effort is necessary to ensure thatorganizations are prepared to act if

future global climate change policiesrequire large-scale deployment ofsequestration technology.

The largest component of theDemonstration and Deploymentelement is the Regional CarbonSequestration Partnerships Program.The seven RCSPs are examiningregional differences in geology, landpractices, ecosystem management,and industrial activity that can affectthe deployment of CCS technologies.

The Carbon Sequestration Programalso supports FutureGen, a keyDOE initiative aimed at building ahighly efcient and technologicallysophisticated power plant thatcan produce both hydrogen andelectricity while capturing andsequestering CO 2 emissions.FutureGen will serve as a full-

scale field laboratory for CCStechnologies, providing a venue forevaluating technologies emergingfrom Core R&D efforts.

The Carbon Sequestration Programconsists of supporting mechanismsperforming systems analyses and

economic modeling of potential newCO 2 capture processes to identifyissues with their integration intofull-scale power plants. The Programalso participates in cross-cuttingstudies to model future national

energy scenarios incorporatingcarbon sequestration. Finally, theProgram collaborates with other U.S.government agencies with overlappingresponsibilities and works with theinternational community through itsmembership in organizations such asthe Carbon Sequestration LeadershipForum (CSLF).

C. Program Role

Figure 3 illustrates the unique rolethat CCS could play in future energysupply networks. The long-termviability of various fuel conversionpathways including pulverizedcoal (PC) combustion, integratedgasication combined-cycle, biomassgasication, and coal-to-liquids may hinge on the availability of

cost-effective CCS technologies.However, carbon capture andsubsurface injection representsmore than just an end-of-processemissions control technology. Thesetechnologies could provide additional

value by facilitating the recoveryof several subsurface resources,including oil, natura l gas, andcoalbed methane.

Currently, in the absence ofregulations limiting or taxingcarbon emissions, the private sectorhas little incentive to developand deploy commercial CCStechnologies. However, throughcost-shared R&D, the Federalgovernment has a role to play inensuring the availability of cost-effective technologies for capturingand sequestering CO 2 from fossilfuel use. Commercial availabilityof CCS technology provides publicbenets in the form of the continueduse of cost-effective fossil fuels in anenvironmentally friendly manner.




As a technology and a researchdiscipline, carbon sequestration isin its infancy. To guide the CarbonSequestration Program through thisearly development period, DOEestablished the following initial

technology goal: To develop, by2012, fossil fuel conversion systemsthat offer 90 percent CO 2 capturewith 99 percent storage permanenceat less than a 10 percent increase inthe cost of energy services.

By simultaneously exploring a numberof related research pathways, themany challenges confronting carbonsequestration can be overcome,enabling the Program to achieve thisambitious goal. R&D progress alongeach of the research pathways shownin Figure 4 will be necessary.

90 percent CO 2 capture : Theamount of CO 2 capturedrepresents 90 percent of thecarbon in the fuel fed to thepower plant or other energysystem. Higher levels of captureare possible but at signicantly

higher cost as driving forces forseparation decrease. A 90 percentcapture level may be necessary tosignicantly reduce emissions.

99 percent storage permanence :After 100 years, less than onepercent of the injected CO 2 hasleaked or is otherwise unaccountedfor. Implied in this performancemeasure are advanced monitoring,mitigation, and verification(MM&V) technologies andmodeling capabilities that makeit possible to achieve and prove99 percent storage permanence.The goal is an average for alldeployments. The test for success iswhether projects can garner creditsfor 99 percent of injected CO 2.

10 percent increase in thecost of energy services : It isbelieved that a 10 percent cost ofelectricity (COE) increase would

signicantly reduce impact to theeconomy. This level will alsoenable fossil fuel systems withCO2 capture and sequestrationto compete with other powergeneration options to reduce theGHG intensity of energy supply,including wind, biomass, andnuclear power. For the electricity

supply sector, the 10 percentCOE increase target is basedon plant gate cost from a newlyconstructed power plant with

capital recovery. The baseline fordetermining the 10 percent COEincrease is the competitive costof power generation at the timeof deployment of a sequestrationplant. For calculation purposes,the baseline cost is derived fromthe DOE Energy InformationAdministration (EIA) Annual

Figure 4. Carbon Sequestration Program Goal and Research Pathways




Energy Outlook projection forthe average generation cost ofelectricity from the utility sector.The cost of CO 2 capture andstorage includes parasitic powerrequirements, CO 2 compression,pipeline transport of 50 miles, andinjection into a saline formation.Revenues from CO 2 sales forenhanced oil recovery (EOR),enhanced gas recovery (EGR),and enhanced coalbed methane(ECBM) recovery are not creditedagainst the cost of CO 2 capture.Net reductions in the cost ofcriteria pollutant control areincluded.

By 2012: The Program seeks tohave pilot-scale unit operationperformance results from acombination of CO 2 capture,MM&V, and storage systemcomponents such that, whenintegrated into a systems analysisframework, would collectively

meet the above goals. Accountingfor the lag associated with pre-large-scale validation and designand construction of large-scalesystems, projects that meet theProgram goal will result in large-scale units that come on-linearound 2020.

For an evolving technology Programsuch as carbon sequestration, th isinitial Program goal represents anear-term opportunity to gaugeProgram progress and success.Longer-term goals are important tofurther explore the capabilities andpotential of carbon sequestration.Figure 5 summarizes important

accomplishments in the Programhistory and also lists future Programmilestones. Additional milestoneswill be added as lessons learnedfrom the Demonstration andDeployment element are fed backto the Core R&D element to guidefuture efforts.




F i g u r e

5 .

C a r

b o n

S e q u e s t r a t

i o n

P r o g r a m

M i l e s t o n e s a n

d G o a

l s




D. Program FundingTranslating the research,development, and deploymentactivities for the CarbonSequestration Program intopublic benets will continue torequire effective use of Programfunds (Figure 6). This is beingachieved through cooperative andcollaborative relationships, bothdomestically and internationally:competitive solicitations; analysisand project evaluation; project meritreviews; proactive public outreachand education; and an emphasis oncost-sharing. Currently, the Programfunds more than 70 projects in adiverse portfolio with strong industrysupport that is evident by the average31 percent cost share of projects.

E. Carbon SequestrationLeadership ForumThe Carbon SequestrationLeadership Forum is a voluntaryclimate initiative of developed anddeveloping nations that accounts for

about 75 percent of all manmadeCO2 emissions. The CSLF wasestablished in 2003 and focuses ondevelopment of CCS technologiesas a means of accomplishing long-term stabilization of GHG levelsin the atmosphere. Its goal is toimprove carbon capture and storagetechnologies through coordinatedresearch and development withinternational par tners and privateindustry. This could includepromoting the appropriate technical,and regulatory environments for thedevelopment of such technology.

The CSLF is currently comprised of22 members, including 21 countries

and the European Commission.Members engage in coordinated andcooperative technology developmentaimed at enabling the early andon-going reduction of CO 2 whichconstitutes more than 60 percentof such emissions the productof electricity generation and otherheavy industrial activity.

III. ChallengesCarbon capture and storagetechnology encompasses two mainCO 2 reduction pathways, both of

which have a role in mitigatingpotential climate change. The CO 2can either be captured at the pointwhere it is produced (stationarysource) or it can be removed fromthe air. In geologic sequestrationfocused on capture from stationarysources, the captured CO 2 ispermanently stored underground. Interrestrial sequestration focused onremoving CO 2 from the air, the CO 2 is absorbed by plants or soils.

The Carbon Sequestration Program is designed to explore these pathwaysand develop the technology baseand infrastructure that will enablecarbon sequestration to become aprominent GHG mitigation option.Common to any such technologyroadmapping effort is the recognitionand identication of challenges thatcurrently hinder commercialization.Various technical, economic,and social challenges currentlyprevent carbon capture andstorage from being a widely usedcommercial technology. TheCarbon Sequestration Program isaddressing these challenges throughapplied research, proof-of-concepttechnology evaluation, pilot-scaletesting, large-scale deployment,stakeholder involvement, and publicoutreach.

A. Global Climate ChangeOver the past century, GHGemissions have increasedsignicantly. In 1900, worldwideCO2 emissions amounted to lessthan 2 billion metric tons per year,according to the Carbon DioxideFigure 6. DOE Sequestration Program Budget

III. CHALLENGES



Information Analysis Center. In2004, worldwide CO 2 emissionstotaled more than 27 billion metrictons, according to the EIA. Theconcern is that atmospheric GHGaccumulations in excess of levels

required to sustain the greenhouseeffect introduce an external forcingfactor leading to global temperatureincreases. Reducing potential global climatechange through atmosphericreductions in GHG concentrationsrepresents a complex, large-scale effort. Carbon dioxide, forexample, is emitted from manydifferent sectors: transportation,residential, commercial, industrial,and electricity generation. Carboncapture and storage is not equallyapplicable or economically viableacross these sectors and would likelyrepresent just one element of a multi-faceted approach that would includeenergy efciency improvements,greater use of renewable energyand nuclear power, migration toless carbon-intensive fuels, andenhancement of various types ofsequestration for carbon emissions.Because the power generation sectoremits the largest fraction of CO 2 inmost industrial countries, however,and because power plants representa large, concentrated stationarysource of CO 2 emissions, carboncapture and storage from stationarypower plants would likely be a corecomponent of any effort aimed atsignicantly reducing atmospheric

CO2 concentrations.

B. Cost-effective CaptureFor geologic sequestrationapplications in which the CO 2 is stored underground, there arethree main cost components:capture, transport, and storage

(which encompasses injection andmonitoring). The cost of captureis typically several times greaterthan the cost of both transport andstorage. In todays economic andregulatory environment, carbon

capture technologies could increaseelectricity production costs by60-100 percent at existing powerplants and by 25-50 percent at newadvanced coal-red power plantsusing IGCC technology.

While industrial CO 2 separat ionprocesses are commerciallyavailable, they have not beendeployed at the scale required forlarge power plant applicationsand, consequently, their use couldsignificantly increase electr icityproduction costs. Improvementsto existing CO 2 capture processes,therefore, as well as the developmentof alternative capture technologies,are important in reducing the costsincurred for carbon capture.

C. Geographical Diversity

Carbon capture and storage effortswill be inherently regional in nature.Geographical differences in thenumber, type, size, and concentrationof stationary GHG sources, coupledwith geographical differences inthe number, type, and potentialcapacity of sequestration sites,dictate a regional approach to carbonmanagement. For example, Texas,Oklahoma, and other oil and gasproducing states may focus carbon

management practices on capturingCO2 and injecting it into producingoil and gas fields to enhancerecovery. Conversely, states in theGreat Plains and Upper Midwest maysupplement geologic sequestrationprojects at remote power plants withterrestrial sequestration projects

that enhance carbon storage usingagricultural and forest managementpractices.

To address the importance ofgeographical diversity in addressing

carbon management issues, DOE isfunding seven RCSPs that coordinateresearch, development, deployment,and outreach in a particular regionof the country. These RCSPs willdene and implement the technology,infrastructure, standards, andregulations necessary to promoteCO2 sequestration in their respectiveRegions.

D. PermanenceOne challenge facing carbon captureand storage is the long-term fate orpermanence of the stored CO 2.To ensure that carbon sequestrationrepresents an effective pathwayfor CO 2 management, permanencemust be conrmed at a high levelof accuracy. The concept ofpermanence is applicable to bothterrestrial and geologic sequestration.

For terrestrial sequestration,permanence refers to the fate ofCO2 absorbed by plants and storedin soils. For geologic sequestration,permanence refers to the retentionof CO 2 in underground geologicformations.

Scientic analysis supports thelong-term storage value attributedto carbon sequestration. As statedin the 2005 IPCC special report,Carbon Dioxide Capture andStorage , observations and analysisof current CO 2 storage sites, naturalsystems, engineering systems, andmodels indicate that the amountof CO 2 retained in appropriatelyselected and managed reservoirsis very likely (probability of

III. CHALLENGES



90-99 percent) to exceed 99 percentover 100 years and is likely(probability of 66-90 percent) toexceed 99 percent over 1,000 years.Moreover, the potential for leakageis expected to decrease over time as

other mechanisms provide additionaltrapping.

E. Monitoring, Mitigation,and VericationClosely related to permanence is theissue of monitoring, mitigation, andverication. The ultimate success ofcarbon capture and storage projectswill hinge on the ability to measurethe amount of CO 2 stored at a

particular site, the ability to conrmthat the stored CO 2 is not harmingthe host ecosystem, and the abilityto effectively mitigate any impactsassociated with a CO 2 leakage.

As with permanence, MM&V isapplicable to both terrestrial andgeologic sequestration. TerrestrialMM&V must overcome difcultiesin assessing carbon storage inlarge ecosystems (such as forests)and in gauging carbon storagepotential in various types of soils.Geologic MM&V must contend withchallenges spanning the movementof CO 2 in geologic reservoirs,the effect of various physical andchemical forces on the CO 2 plume,leak detection, and the developmentof robust mitigation techniques thatcan respond to a variety of potentialleakage events.

F. Integration and Long-term PerformanceA number of the technologicalelements associated with carboncapture and storage are proven, butthere has been no demonstratedlong-term performance at large

industrial sites integrating carboncapture, transportation, and nalstorage. Much of the knowledgebase pertaining to carbon captureand storage has been derived fromthe oil and natural gas industries,where CO

2 has been injected for

over 30 years for oil recovery andthe incremental storage cost is small.Broader implementation is required,particularly in the power generationindustry, but such commercializationis not likely absent emissionregulations, incentives, orgovernment funding.

Long-term integrated testing andvalidation is necessary for technical,

economic, and regulatory reasons.From a technical perspective, theability to separate a CO 2 streamfrom the power plant ue gas stream,compress it for pipeline delivery, andsustain delivery at pressures adequateto ensure dependable injectivityand reservoir permeability mustbe confirmed. From an economicperspective, the costs associated withCCS must be quantified in greaterdetail to encourage investmentand ensure cost recovery. From aregulatory perspective, long-termoperating data must be collectedto ensure that CO 2 transportationsystems, injection wells, and storagereservoirs are properly regulatedto safeguard the environment andpublic health.

G. Permitting and LiabilityBecause carbon capture andstorage remains a relatively youngtechnology par ticularly in termsof projects in the eld a numberof permitting and liability issuesare still evolving. With respectto permitting, CO 2 injection andmonitoring wells will have tocomply with state and Federal

regulations. In early 2006, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) concluded that geologicsequestration of CO 2 through wellinjection met the definition ofunderground injection in the Safe

Drinking Water Act. As a result,underground sources of drinkingwater must be protected frompotential endangerment attributed tocarbon sequestration pilot projects,most likely through the issuanceof underground injection controlpermits. Currently, injection wellsfor carbon sequestration with EORor EGR are being permitted asClass II injection wells (wells thatinject waste uids associated with

the production of oil and naturalgas). However, injection wellsfor all other carbon sequestrationprojects are being permitted asClass V experimental technologywells (wells that are not includedin any other class and inject non-hazardous uids). To ensure thatAgency efforts a re coordinatedand communicated effectively,DOE participates in quar terlymeetings at a high managementlevel with EPA. In addition, bothDOE and the RCSPs were involvedwith providing comments forEPAs rst Underground InjectionControl program guidance relatedto permitting initial pilot projectsas experimental technology wells,giving regulatory agencies enhancedexibility in expediting these projects.

Access and liability issues representanother uncer tain, evolvingchallenge. In many states, landrights are held separate from mineralrights, potentially complicatingsequestration projects aimed atsecondary resource recovery.Gaining access to attractiveunderground storage sites may proveto be difcult in some cases.

III. CHALLENGES



Liability concerns primarily centeron which entity or group of entitieswill be responsible for the CO 2 stored underground after injectionis completed. Since the stored CO 2 will conceivably remain underground

indefinitely, lines of responsibilitymust be defined that can trackpotential damage or impacts to aparticular leak. Federal and stateagencies, insurance companies, theCO2 producer, the sequestration siteoperator, and the landowner may allbe involved in determining the chainof custody, developing appropriatebonding mechanisms, remediatingany problems, and providing long-term monitoring. Illinois and

Texas have recently addressedthese liability issues as they relateto clean coal projects. Legislationpending in Illinois would provideadequate liability protection andpermitting certainty to facilitate thesiting of a FutureGen project in thestate. While the FutureGen plantoperator would retain title to and anyliabilities associated with the pre-injection CO 2, the state would accepttitle to and any liabilities associatedwith the sequestered gas. Legislationenacted in Texas species that theowner or operator of a clean coalproject will retain liability for theCO2 generated before it is capturedbut indicates that the state willaccept title to the CO 2 captured bythe power plant and may make itavailable for sale or for injection intoa geologic formation for permanentstorage.

H. Public AcceptanceThe public is generally unfamiliarwith CCS and the large role itmight play in the reduction ofGHG emissions. Education andoutreach efforts are required todispel misconceptions, outline

opportunities and challenges,and invite feedback pertaining toimplementation mechanisms.

Public support is cr itical tothe success of research and

commercialization efforts; moreimportantly, public disapprovalis very difcult to overcome. Itis imperative, therefore, that therelevant government and privateentities engage the public toexplain the technology and addressenvironmental, health, and safetyconcerns as they arise. Publicoutreach activities conducted by theRCSP coordinators have included:development and utilization of asuite of educational and outreachtools to communicate with national,regional, and local audiences,policymakers, and stakeholders onthe subject of carbon sequestrationincluding a carbon sequestrationvideo for general and non-technicalaudiences; focus groups to gaugepublic knowledge and perceptionsof carbon sequestration; townhall-style meetings to inform and

educate about sequestration; riskcommunication workshops; andhundreds of carbon sequestrationposters, presentations, and otheroutreach materials for publicdissemination.

I. InfrastructureIf carbon capture and storageis widely deployed to controlCO 2 emissions, significant

infrastructure investments will berequired, particularly for geologicsequestration. Stationary sourceCO2 emitters like coal-red powerplants may have to invest in a hostof non-core assets, including carbonseparation systems, CO 2 pipelines,drilling rigs, injection systems, andmonitoring networks. Beyond the

capital investment required, emittersmay face resource competition forthe equipment and personnel neededto install, operate, and maintainthese systems. Access to drillingrigs, for example, could become akey issue if the oil and natural gassectors continue aggressive domesticdrilling campaigns.

During the large-scale carbonsequestration test projects plannedfor the next 10 years, an additionalinfrastructure challenge involvesthe supply of sufficient CO 2 toenable long-term deployment andevaluation. While huge quantities ofCO2 are theoretically available from

power plant sources, separation andsupply of this CO 2 for the carbonstorage deployments projects isunlikely because of the expenseinvolved in separating the CO 2 in the absence of CO 2 emissionregulations and/or because of theuncertain reliability associated withutility-scale CO 2 separation systems.In most cases, the CO 2 requiredfor the deployment projects willbe supplied from natural sourcesor from industrial processes thatproduce a relatively pure CO 2 streamas a by-product. Securing sufcientquantities of CO 2 from these sourcesis a key requirement.

III. CHALLENGES



IV.TechnologyDevelopmentEffortsThe Carbon Sequestration Programis developing a portfolio oftechnologies with great potential toreduce GHG emissions. The primaryconcentration of this high priorityProgram is on dramatically loweringthe cost and energy requirementsof pre- and post-combustion CO 2

capture. The goal is to have atechnology portfolio by 2012 forsafe, cost-effective, and long-termcarbon mitigation, management,and storage, which will lead tosubstantial market penetration after2012. In the long-term, the Programis expected to contribute signicantlyto the Presidents goal of developingtechnologies to substantially reduceGHG emissions.

A. Core R&DThe Programs Core R&D elementencompasses five focus a reas:CO 2 Capture; Carbon Storage;Monitoring, Mitigation, andVerication; Non-CO 2 GreenhouseGas Control; and BreakthroughConcepts. Research activitiesare conducted through an ar rayof internal and external fundingmechanisms, spanning laboratory-scale research through pilot-scaledeployment. Focus area researchconverts technology needs relatedto CCS into technology solutionsready for larger-scale testing anddeployment.

1. CO 2 CaptureCarbon sequestration begins withthe separation and capture of CO 2 from power plant ue gas and otherstationary sources. At present, thisprocess is both costly and energy

intensive; analysis shows that CO 2 capture accounts for the majorityof the cost of the CCS system.Therefore, R&D goals within thePrograms CO 2 Capture focus areaare aimed at improving the efciencyand reducing the costs of capturingCO 2 emissions from coal-firedpower generating plants, as shown inFigure 7.

The Program currently funds a largenumber of laboratory-scale and pilot-scale research projects involvingsolvents, sorbents, membranes, andoxygen combustion systems (oxy-

combustion). Efforts are focusedon systems for capturing CO 2 fromcoal-red power plants since they arethe largest stationary sources of CO 2,although the technologies developedwill be applicable to natura l-gas-red power plants and industrial CO

2

sources as well.

Figure 8 highlights the cr iticalchallenges and R&D pathwaysrelated to CO 2 capture. Thepathways include both advancedfossil fuel conversion technologiesand CO 2 capture technologies,recognizing the strong synergythat exists between the two areas.The Programs CO 2 capture

research is being conducted inclose coordination with research onadvanced, higher-efciency powergeneration and fossil fuel conversion.

CO 2 capture systems may bedivided into three categories: post-combustion, pre-combustion, andoxy-combustion.

Post-combustion. Post-combustion

CO2 capture is primarily applicableto conventional coal-red powergeneration, but may also be appliedto gas-fired generation usingcombustion turbines. In a typicalcoal-red power generation system,fuel is burned with air in a boilerto produce steam; the steam drivesa turbine to generate electricity,as shown in Figure 9. The boilerexhaust, or ue gas, consists mostlyof nitrogen (N 2) and CO 2. Separating

CO2 from this ue gas stream ischallenging for several reasons:

CO 2 is present at diluteconcentrations (13-15 volumepercent in coal-red systems and3-4 volume percent in gas-redturbines) and at low pressure

IV. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

Figure 7. Capture Goals



(15-25 pounds per square inchabsolute [psia]), which dictates thata high volume of gas be treated.

Trace impurities (part iculatematter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogenoxides) in the flue gas candegrade sorbents and reducethe effectiveness of certain CO 2 capture processes.

Compressing captured orseparated CO 2 from atmosphericpressure to pipeline pressure(about 2,000 psia) represents alarge auxiliary power load on theoverall power plant system.

Absorption processes based onchemical solvents such as amines,as described in Figure 9, have

been developed and deployedcommercially in certain industries.To date, however, their use in PCpower plants has been restrictedto slipstream applications, andno definitive analysis exists as tothe actual costs for a full-scalecapture plant. Preliminary analysisconducted at NETL indicates thatCO2 capture via amine scrubbing


Figure 8. CO2 Capture Pathways



and compression to 2,200 psia couldraise the cost of electricity from anew supercritical PC power plant by65 percent, from 5.0 cents/kilowatt-hour (kWh) to 8.25 cents/kWh.

Pre-combustion. Pre-combustionCO2 capture relates to gasicationplants, where fuel is convertedinto gaseous components byapplying heat under pressure in thepresence of steam (Figure 10). In agasication reactor, the amount ofair or oxygen (O 2) available insidethe gasier is carefully controlled sothat only a portion of the fuel burnscompletely. This partial oxidationprocess provides the heat necessaryto chemically decompose the fueland produce synthesis gas (syngas),which is composed of hydrogen(H 2), carbon monoxide (CO) andminor amounts of other gaseousconstituents. The syngas is thenprocessed in a water-gas-shift (WGS)reactor, which converts the CO toCO2 and increases the CO 2 and H 2 mole concentrations to 40 percentand 55 percent, respectively, in thesyngas stream.

At this point, the CO 2 has a highpartial pressure (and high chemicalpotential), which improves the drivingforce for various types of separationand capture technologies. After CO 2 removal, the H 2 rich syngas can beconverted to electrical or thermalpower. One application is to use H 2 as a fuel in a combustion turbineto generate electr icity. Additional

electricity is generated by extractingthe energy from the combustionturbine ue gas via a heat recoverysteam generator. Another application,currently being developed under theDOE Fuel Cell Program, is to utilizethe H 2 to power fuel cells with theintent of signicantly raising overallplant efficiency. Because CO 2 ispresent at much higher concentrationsin syngas than in post-combustionflue gas, CO 2 capture should beless expensive for pre-combustioncapture than for post-combustioncapture. Currently, however, there arefew gasication plants in full-scaleoperation and capital costs are higherthan for PC plants.

Figure 8 shows the research pathwaysbeing pursued for pre-combustionCO2 capture. Near-term applicationsof CO 2 capture from pre-combustionsystems will likely involve physicalor chemical absorption processes,with the current state-of-the-artbeing a physical glycol-based solventcalled Selexol. Mid-term to long-term opportunities to reduce capture

costs through improved performancecould come from membranes andsorbents currently at the laboratorystage of development. Analysisconducted at NETL shows thatCO2 capture and compression usingSelexol raises the cost of electricityfrom a newly built IGCC power plantby 30 percent, from an average of7.8 cents/kWh to 10.2 cents/kWh.Research being conducted by theDOE Gasication Research Programis expected to improve gasicationtechnology such that its costs withoutcapture will be comparable toelectricity costs from pulverized coalwithout capture, potentially reducingfurther the cost of pre-combustionCO2 capture in the future.


Figure 9. Post-Combustion Capture



Oxygen combustion (oxy- combustion) . The objective ofpulverized coal oxygen-firedcombustion is to combust coal in anenriched oxygen environment usingpure oxygen diluted with recycledCO

2 or H

2O (Figure 11). Under

these conditions, the primaryproducts of combustion areCO 2 and H 2O, and the CO 2 canbe captured by condensing thewater in the exhaust stream.Oxy-combustion offers severaladditional benets, as determined

through large-scale laboratorytesting and systems analysis:

A 60-70 percent reduction in NO x emissions compared to air-redcombustion, mainly due to uegas recycle, but also from reducedthermal NO x levels due to loweravailable nitrogen. Some nitrogenis still available from coal nitrogenand air inltrations.

Increased mercury removal. Boilertests of oxy-fuel combustion using

Powder River Basin (PRB) coalresulted in increased oxidation ofmercury, facilitating downstreammercury removal in theelectrostatic precipitator and uegas desulfurization systems.

Applicability to new and existingcoal-red power plants. Thekey process principles involvedin oxy-combustion have beendemonstrated commercially(including air separation and uegas recycle).


Figure 10. Pre-Combustion Capture



Both pre-combustion and oxy-combustion utilize air separationto combust coal in an enrichedoxygen environment. However,it is important to note that theamount of oxygen required inoxy-combustion is significantlygreater than in pre-combustionapplications, increasing CO 2 capture costs. Oxygen is typicallyproduced using low-temperature(cryogenic) air separation, butnovel oxygen separation techniquessuch as ion transport membranesand chemical looping systems arebeing developed to reduce costs.

2. Carbon StorageCarbon storage is defined as theplacement of CO 2 into a repositoryin such a way that it will remainstored or sequestered permanently. Itincludes geologic sequestration and

terrestrial sequestration. (Figure 12).

Geologic Sequestration. Geologicsequestration involves the injectionof CO 2 into underground reservoirsthat have the ability to securelycontain it over long per iods oftime. The primary objective ofProgram research is to developtechnologies to cost-effectively


Figure 11. Oxy-Combustion

store and monitor CO 2 in geologicformations. Accomplishing thisinvolves improved understanding ofCO2 ow and trapping within thereservoir and the development anddeployment of technologies such assimulation models and monitoringsystems. Experience gained fromcarbon sequestration eld tests willfacilitate the development of bestpractice manuals to ensure thatsequestration does not impair thegeologic integrity of undergroundreservoirs, thus assuring securedand environmentally acceptable CO 2 storage.




Figure 12. Carbon sequestration encompasses the processes of capture and storage of CO 2



Figure 13 highlights the ProgramR&D goals for the geologic storageresearch area. The goals are focusedon reservoir characterization,storage potential, and large-scaleinjection, which are tied directlyto the Program goal of achieving99 percent storage permanence.Figure 14 summarizes the criticalchallenges and R&D pathwaysrelated to carbon storage. Researchis concentrated on ve types ofgeologic formations, each presentingunique challenges and opportunities.These formations include oil and gasreservoirs, deep saline formations,unmineable coal seams, oil and gasrich organic shales, and basalts.

Oil and gas reservoirs consist ofporous rock strata that have trappedcrude oil or natural gas for millionsof years. An impermeable overlying

rock formation forms a seal that trapsthe oil and gas; the same mechanismwould apply to CO 2 storage. As avalue-added benet, CO 2 injectedinto these reservoirs can facilitaterecovery of oil and gas resources leftbehind by earlier recovery efforts.CO2 can increase oil recovery from adepleting reservoir by an additional10-20 percent of the original oil inplace. The Program work in thisarea is focused on CO 2 injectionpractices that would help maximizethe amount of CO 2 sequestered.

Saline formations are composedof porous rock saturated withbrine and capped by one or more

regionally extensive impermeablerock formations enabling trappingof injected CO 2. Compared to coalseams or oil and gas reservoirs,saline formations are more commonand offer the added benefits ofgreater proximity, higher CO 2 storage capacity, and fewer existingwell penetrations. On the otherhand, much less is known about thepotential of saline formations to storeand immobilize CO 2.

Unmineable coal seams, at depthsbeyond conventional recoverylimits, represent another promisingopportunity for CO 2 ECBM recovery.Most coals contain adsorbedmethane, but will preferentiallyadsorb CO 2 and desorb (release)methane. Similar to the by-product value gained from EOR,the recovered methane provides a

value-added revenue stream to theCCS process, creating a lower netcost option. While CO 2 injection isknown to displace methane, a greaterunderstanding of the displacementmechanism is needed to optimizeCO 2 storage and to understandthe problems of coal swelling anddecreased permeability.

CO2 storage in coal seams representsa promising sequestration pathwaybut research is needed along severalfronts to overcome technical,economic, and environmentalbarriers: (i) storage capacity in deep,unmineable coal seams, includingguidelines for dening unmineablecoals; (ii) geologic and reservoirdata dening favorable settings forinjecting and storing CO 2 in coalseams; (iii) enhanced understandingof the near-term and longer-terminteractions between CO 2 and coals,particularly the ability to model coalswelling (reduction of permeability)in the presence of CO 2; (iv) reliable,high-volume CO 2 injection strategies

and well-spacing patterns that couldreduce the number of wells requiredfor storing signicant volumes ofCO2; and (v) integrated CO 2 storageand ECBM recovery. Shale, the most common type ofsedimentary rock, is characterizedby thin horizontal layers of rock withvery low permeability in the verticaldirection. Many shales contain1-5 percent organic material and thishydrocarbon material provides anadsorption substrate for CO 2 storage,similar to CO 2 storage in coal seams.Research is focused on achievingeconomically viable CO 2 injectionrates, given their generally lowpermeability.

Basalt formations are geologicformations of solidied lava. Basaltformations have a unique chemical

makeup that could potentiallyconvert all of the injected CO 2 to asolid mineral form, thus isolating itfrom the atmosphere permanently.Research is focused on enhancingand utilizing the mineralizationreactions and increasing CO 2 owwithin a basalt formation. Althoughoil and gas rich organic shales and


Figure 13. Geologic Storage Goals



basalts research is in its infancy,these formations may, in the future,prove to be optimal storage sites forstranded emissions sources.

Cross-cutting R&D Issues.CO 2 trapping mechanisms withingeologic reservoirs. Of emergingimportance in the eld of geologicsequestration is the scienceof maximizing the use of CO 2 trapping mechanisms. Like oiland natural gas, supercritical CO 2

is generally less dense than thereservoir water and exhibits a strongtendency to flow upward. Overtime, CO 2 becomes less mobileas a combination of physical and

geochemical trapping enhance thepermanence of CO 2 stored within ageologic reservoir. Finally, coal andother organically-rich formationswill preferentially adsorb CO 2 ontocarbon surfaces as a function ofreservoir pressure, thereby trappingCO2.

Produced water. CO2 injection forenhanced oil and gas recovery willresult in salty water (brine) beingdisplaced and produced at the surface.Produced water can be re-injected

into deeper non-economic reservoirs,pooled in shallow ponds andevaporated, or treated and utilized forirrigation or other purposes. However,because produced water treatment iscostly using current desalination andtreatment technologies, alternativewater treatment pathways are beingexplored.

Figure 14. Storage Pathways



24/48



and safety and preventing potentialdamage to the host ecosystem.MM&V also seeks to set the stagefor emissions reduction credits, ifa domestic program is established,that approach 100 percent of injectedCO

2, contributing to the economic

viability of sequestration projects.Finally, MM&V will provideimproved information and feedbackto sequestration practitioners, thusaccelerating technology progress.Figure 17 illustrates the criticalchallenges and R&D pathwaysrelated to MM&V.

Figure 16. MM&V Goals

Figure 17. MM&V Pathways




Monitor ing and Verif ica tionTechnologies for CO 2 Storage inGeologic Formations.Monitoring and verication activitiesfor geologic sequestration encompassthree components:

Modeling . Modeling involvessimulating the undergroundconditions that inf luencethe behavior of CO 2 injectedinto geologic formations andcharacterizing any resultinggeomechanical changes to thereservoir. Comprehensive CO 2 storage reservoir modeling willenable researchers to predict how

CO2 plumes will ow and becomehydrodynamically trapped inthe short term and to understandthe effects of chemical reactions(and other mechanisms) thatwill immobilize CO 2 over thelonger term. These models willhelp operators reduce the risksassociated with inducing fractures

in caprock and reactivating faultsduring injection. Such modelingcapabilities engender condencethat injected CO 2 will remainsecurely stored before injectioncommences. Comprehensive CO 2 storage modeling does not justexamine the target reservoir butalso the potential pathways that

fugitive CO 2 may follow. Theability to model uid transportand chemical reactions withingeologic reservoirs already exists.Models are currently in use tomanage secondary and tertiary oilrecovery and to examine the long-term fate of industrial hazardouswastes disposed underground.

Activities are underway to adaptthese models to geologic CO 2 storage. The Program seeks toacquire the detailed data neededto support reliable operationof these models (i.e., chemicalreaction kinetics and two-and three-phase vapor/liquidequilibrium data at supercritical




conditions) and to developintegrated models that supportearly small-scale pilot eld tests.

Plume tracking. Undergroundplume tracking provides the

ability to map the injected CO 2 and track its movement and fatethrough a reservoir. The ability toverify the location of injected CO 2 over time is necessary to assurestorage permanence. Seismicsurveys (e.g., 4-D seismic,time-lapse vertical seismicproling) and sampling fromwells (borehole logging) arekey technologies used for plumetracking. Because supercritical

CO 2 is less dense and morecompressible than saline water,seismic waves travel through it ata different velocity. As a result ofthe velocity contrast, the presenceof free CO 2 in a saline formationleaves a distinct seismic signature,as seen at the Weyburn (Canada)and Frio (Texas) eld sites.

Observation wells instrumentedto monitor reservoir conditionssuch as pressure, temperature,and other properties are anotherimportant source of informationfor plume tracking. Much canbe learned from the monitoringefforts used by CO 2 EOR projectsand particularly by the gas storageindustry. The Program work inthis area is focused on adaptingthese technologies for use inCO 2 sequestration applications,where knowledge gained fromeld tests will help optimize CO 2 storage and identify the least-costapproach to effective MM&V.

Leak detection. Beyond servingas backstops for modelingand plume tracking, CO 2 leakdetection systems provide

critical measures of whetherCO2 is escaping from the storagereservoir. One challenge for leakdetection is the need to coverlarge areas cost-effectively at therequired resolution. The CO 2 plume from an injection of onemillion tons of CO 2 per year in adeep saline formation for 20 yearscould be spread over a horizontalarea of 15 square miles or more.

There are important interconnectionsamong these three areas. Data fromplume tracking enables validationof reservoir models; robust reservoirmodels enable operators to designand better interpret data from plume

tracking; and models and plumetracking help focus leak detectionefforts on high-risk areas. Suchinformation provides a basis foraddressing public and regulatoryconcerns and ensures that no adverseevents are l ikely to occur in thestorage formation.

Mitigation approaches.The science and technology ofremediating CO

2 leakage is still

emerging. Storing CO 2 in rigorouslyselected geological formations suchas at Weyburn (Canada), Sleipner(Norway), and In Salah (Algeria)suggest that the inherent risks andpotential quantities of CO 2 leakagewill be minimal. In the unlikelyevent that CO 2 leakage occurs, stepscan be taken to arrest the ow ofCO2 and mitigate the impacts. Forexample, lowering the pressure

within the CO 2 storage reservoir bystopping injection could reduce thedriving force for CO 2 ow and closea leaking fault or fracture. Otheroptions include forming a pressurebarrier by increasing the pressurein the reservoir into which CO 2 isleaking or by intercepting the CO 2 leakage paths. Another strategy is

plugging the region where leakageis occurring with low permeabilitymaterials. Additional research inthis area is needed, especially onquantifying the costs associated withdifferent remedial actions.

MM&V for Terrestrial Ecosystems.MM&V activities focused onterrestrial ecosystems encompassthree components:

Organic matter measurement. Traditional methods for measuringcarbon in terrestrial ecosystems(e.g., measuring tree diametersand analyzing soil samplesin an off-site laboratory) are

labor-intensive and costly. TheProgram is developing automatedtechnologies that provide moredetailed and timely information atlower cost for use in managing asequestration site.

Soil carbon measurement. Soilcarbon offers the potential forlong-term CO 2 storage. TheProgram is developing automatedtechnologies for measuring soil

carbon.

Modeling. Detailed models areused to extrapolate the resultsof carbon uptake activities fromrandom samples to an entire plotand to estimate the net increasein carbon storage relative to acase without enhanced carbonuptake. Economic models showaccumulations of emissionscredits and revenues versus aninitial investment.

These three components have a vitalrole in proving the permanence ofCO2 storage in terrestrial ecosystems.Continued research is needed,particularly since quantifyingCO2 leakage rates from terrestrialecosystems using current technology




is more challenging than identifyingleaks in geologic storage formations.In addition, the development of robustand f lexible accounting protocolsthat function within future regulatoryand market regimes is critical to theverication of long-term storage interrestrial ecosystems.

Accounting protocols. Monitoring and measurementsystems must provide certainty toproject owners, regulators and theglobal environmental communitythat sequestration projects areachieving and sustaining expectedlevels of CO 2 permanence. Akey challenge facing the carbonsequestration community, therefore,is the development of robust,equitable, and transparent accounting

Two large sources of methane andGHGs in the U.S. landlls andcoal mines represent priorityR&D pathways for the CarbonSequestration Program (Figure 18).In one pathway, the producedmethane is combusted, reducingthe carbons GHG effect by a factorof ten. In the other pathway, theproduced methane is captured andutilized.

Landfill gas is typically a 50/50mixture of methane and CO 2,with trace amounts of heavierhydrocarbons. The Program isexploring methods to enhance thebiological utilization of methanein landfil l covers and studyingmanagement practices at bioreactorlandlls to control the conditions


mechanisms with the exibility tofunction within future regulatory andmarket regimes. 4. Non-CO 2 GreenhouseGas ControlAccording to the EIA, non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissionscontributed 16 percent of the totalU.S. GHG emissions in 2005. Sincemany non-CO 2 greenhouse gases(e.g., methane, nitrous oxide, andcertain refrigerants) have signicanteconomic value, emissions can oftenbe captured or avoided at low netcost. The Carbon SequestrationProgram aims to tap the economicvalue of fugitive methane emissionsby developing innovative capture andgas upgrading technologies.



within the landfill to promote orsuppress methane production. TheProgram is also exploring techniquesto enhance methane capture anduse for energy generation, includingthe injection of landfill gas intounmineable coal seams to harnessthe natural ability of coal to adsorbCO2, thus replacing and releasingmethane for ECBM.

Methane emissions from coal minesrepresent about 10 percent of U.S.anthropogenic methane emissions.Ventilation air methane (VAM)is the largest source of coal minemethane accounting for abouthalf of the methane emitted from

5. Breakthrough ConceptsDOE is committed to fostering theinnovative potential of industryand academia. The BreakthroughConcepts focus area serves as anincubator for CO 2 capture, storage, and

conversion concepts with the potentialto provide step-change improvementsin process efciency, energy use, andcost. Figure 19 illustrates some of theresearch pathways being pursued inthe Breakthrough Concepts focus area.

In October 2006, DOE announcedthe selection of nine projects aimedat developing novel and cost-effectivetechnologies for CO 2 capture fromcoal-red power plants. Two ofthese projects have matured fromBreakthrough Concepts selectionsunder a 2004 joint DOE/NationalAcademies of Science (NAS)solicitation to the Core R&D CO 2 Capture focus area, where theywill be advanced to the pre-pilotscale. One project will focus on thedevelopment of a new class of liquidabsorbents called ionic liquids forefcient post-combustion capture of

CO 2 from coal-fired power plants.The other project will develop aprocess that uses novel microporousmetal organic frameworks havingextremely high adsorption capacitiesfor the removal of CO 2 from coal-fired power plant flue gas. TheProgram also supports research inmembranes and mineral ization,including a project to create microbesthat biologically sequester CO 2 byconverting it to other value-added

chemicals that have use in certa indrug compounds, agricultural andfood production, and biodegradableplastics.

U.S. coal mines. The Programis pursuing technologies to cost-effectively convert the methane incoal mine ventilation air to CO 2.Methane can also be recovered frommine degasication systems, wheremethane concentrations are muchhigher (30-90 percent) than in coalmine VAM (0.3-1.5 percent). Here,the Program aims to develop anddeploy cost-effective technologiesto upgrade gas to pipeline qualityspecifications. The Program iscollaborating with the U.S. EPA,which has both coal mine methaneand landll gas outreach programs.


Figure 18. Non-CO2 GHG Pathways



B. Regional CarbonSequestration Partnerships

1. Overview

Geographic differences in fossil fueluse and potential sequestration storagesites across the U.S. dictate the useof regional approaches in addressingCO2 sequestration. DOE has createda network of seven Regional CarbonSequestration Partnerships to developthe technology, infrastructure, andregulations necessary to implementCO2 sequestration in different regionsof the Nation. Underlying thisregional partnership approach is the

belief that local entities, organizations,and citizens will contribute expertise,experience, and perspectives thatmore accurately represent theconcerns and desires of a givenregion, resulting in the developmentand application of technologies bettersuited to that region.

Collectively, the seven RCSPs represent

regions encompassing 97 percent ofcoal-red CO 2 emissions, 97 percent ofindustrial CO 2 emissions, 96 percent ofthe total land mass, and essentially allthe geologic sequestration sites in theU.S. potentially available for carbonstorage. The RCSPs are evaluating

numerous sequestration approaches toassess which approaches are best suitedfor specic regions of the country andare developing the framework neededto validate and potentially deploy themost promising CCS technologies.The two sequestration options thathave evolved from the Core R&Delement as priorities for near-termdeployment are:

Geologic Sequestration CO 2 injection into different geologicformations including depleted oiland natural gas elds, unmineablecoal seams, saline formations,shale, and basalt outcrops


Figure 19. Breakthrough Concepts



Terrestrial Sequestration carbonsequestration in soils and organicmaterial through the restorationof agricultural elds, grasslands,rangeland, wetlands, and forestsor by altering the management of

these assets

Among the seven RCSP Regions,geologic sequestration sites differin their l ithology as well as theirlocations relative to CO 2 emissionsources and pipelines. Some regionshave an abundance of differenttypes of geologic formations, whileopportunities in other regions aredominated by a specic formationtype. Terrestrial sequestrationoptions vary across regions based ondifferences in average temperature,topography, soil type, amount ofrainfall, and other factors.

The process of sequestering carbondioxide involves identifying sourcesthat produce CO 2 and identifyingsequestration sites where theCO 2 can be stored. Based ondata assembled for the Carbon

Sequestration Atlas of the UnitedStates and Canada , Table 1 showsthat 4,365 identified stationarysources in the seven RCSP Regionsand the northeastern U.S. generateabout 3.809 billion metric tons ofCO2 annually. The aggregate CO 2 sink capacity including salineformations, unmineable coal seams,and oil and natural gas reservoirs is estimated to range up to3,643 billion metric tons, enough to

sequester CO 2 emissions at currentannual generation rates for hundredsof years. The formation maps inFigure 20 show the geographic

locations of these CO 2 sources andpotential geologic sequestrationsites. The RCSPs include more than 350organizations and span 41 states,

three Indian nations, and fourCanadian provinces. The partnersinclude utilities, oil and naturalgas companies, ethanol producers,agricultural industry, other industrialpartners, state and local governmentorganizations, regional universities,national laboratories, and specialinterest groups representingindustrial and environmentalcommunities. Table 2 provideswebsite, acronym, lead organization,and geographic coverage informationfor the RCSPs.


Table 1. Capacity Estimates of CO2 Sources and Geologic Sequestration Sites



Figure 20. Maps for CO2 Sources and Geologic Sequestration Sites





Table 2. Regional Partnerships



Each of the RCSPs is described below in terms of participating organizations,strategic focus on eld testing, and types of CO 2 storage opportunities beingevaluated. The Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership (Big Sky) is comprisedof 66 partners and native American tribes. The Big Sky Partnership has

extensive basalt formations, saline formations, and oil and natural gasreservoirs that could be used as storage sites. Geologic eld tests are plannedin deep saline and depleted oil elds. The Big Sky Partnership is alsoexploring the Regions potential to store CO 2 in agricultural soils, rangelandsoils, and forests. Three terrestrial tests are planned to examine CO 2 uptake.

The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) is comprisedof 21 partners and is assessing the ability of geological formations in theIllinois Basin to store CO 2 in unmineable coal seams, mature oil elds, anddeep saline formations. Highly favorable storage areas may exist in this

Region since two or more potential CO 2 sink types are vertically stacked insome localities. MGSC will also investigate CO 2 capture technologies andthe costs of transporting large quantities of CO 2 via pipeline. Six small pilotprojects will evaluate EOR by CO 2 ooding, CO 2 sequestration in unmineablecoal seams, and CO 2 injection into deep saline formations up to 10,000 feetbelow the Earths surface.

The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) has36 partners and is determining the CO 2 storage potential of various geologicformations, particularly saline formations. MRCSP will conduct three CO 2

injection eld tests in deep geologic formations in the Region to demonstratethe safety and effectiveness of geologic sequestration systems. MRCSP willalso conduct three terrestrial sequestration eld tests to explore how naturallystored carbon can be measured and monitored and how carbon credits couldbe traded in voluntary GHG markets.

The Plains CO 2 Reduction Partnership (PCOR) consists of 63 partnersworking to demonstrate the potential of depleted oil elds, and unmineablelignite coals to store CO 2 emissions. Geologic tests are planned in the oil-bearing Keg River and Duperow formations in Alberta province and North

Dakota, respectively, while a coal seam sequestration test is planned for theWilliston Basin in North Dakota. The Partnership also plans to demonstratethat carbon can be stored in the native grasslands and through the restorationof wetlands. Terrestrial eld tests are planned for the Great Plains PrairiePothole wetlands complex.




The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) has 77 partners working to characterize carbon sources and potential

sequestration sites in the Southeast; identify the most promising capture,sequestration, and transport options; and address issues for technologydeployment. SECARB will conduct four geologic sequestration eldtests covering EOR stacked formations along the Gulf Coast, coal seamsequestration and coalbed methane recovery, and saline formations.

The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) has52 partners in eight states, including the Navajo nation. SWP is investigatinga variety of carbon sink targets. The Partnership will leverage 30 years ofEOR experience in the Region to determine the potential of oil, coal, andsaline formations to store CO 2 emissions. Field testing of ECBM productionwith carbon sequestration is planned. The Partnership is also investigatingthe potential of terrestrial systems in the Southwest to store CO 2, including ariparian restoration project using produced water from the ECBM eld test.

The West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership(WESTCARB) is comprised of 78 partners dedicated to evaluating regionalCCS opportunities. The Partnership is examining the sequestration potentialin depleted oil, unmineable coal, and deep saline formations. One EORand saline storage test is planned in California and one saline storage test inArizona. Terrestrial sequestration pilot projects will be conducted in Oregonand California. The Partnership will also investigate the use of reforestationand re suppression to mitigate CO 2 emissions.




2. RCSP ProgramThe RCSP Program was initiated inSeptember 2003 through an opencompetitive solicitation process thatrequired a minimum 20 percent costshare from the prospective awardees.As Figure 21 illustrates, the RCSPProgram is being implemented inthree interrelated phases. Levels ofDOE funding without cost shares areshown.

Characterization Phase(FY 2003 FY 2005)

Validation Phase(FY 2005 FY 2009)

Deployment Phase(FY 2008 FY 2017)

Actual cost shares for the RCSPsthrough the Characterization andValidation Phases have ranged fromthe 20 percent minimum to as high

as 52 percent. As a group, the sevenRCSPs have provided more than31 percent in cost sharing throughthe first two phases.

Even though the RCSP Program isbeing implemented in three phases,it should be viewed as an integratedwhole, with many of the goals andobjectives transitioning from onephase to the next. Accomplishmentsand results from the CharacterizationPhase have helped to rene goals andactivities in the Validation Phase, andresults from the Validation Phase areexpected to ow into and enhancethe Deployment Phase.

The RCSP Program encourages andrequires open information sharingamong its members. DOE andthe RCSPs sponsor both generalworkshops and more focusedtechnology area Working Groupmeetings to facilitate information

exchange. These meetings areimportant tools that strengthen theoverall RCSP Program. Althougheach RCSP has its own objectivesand eld tests, mutual cooperation

has been an important part of theProgram to date. These workshopsand formal Working Groupactivities were initiated duringthe Characterization Phase, havecontinued into the Validation Phase,and will likely be an importantaspect of the Deployment Phase aswell.

3. Characterization Phase

The Characterization Phase,completed in 2005, focused oncharacterizing regional opportunitiesfor carbon capture and storage,identifying regional CO 2 sources,and identifying priority opportunitiesfor eld tests. Each RCSP developeddecision support systems that houseregional geologic data on CO 2


Figure 21. Regional Partnership Phases



storage sites and information on CO 2 sources to complete source-sinkmatching models. Each RCSP alsoresearched project tools necessaryto model and measure the fateand spread of CO 2 after injection.Combined with public outreach andeducation programs conducted by theRCSPs during the CharacterizationPhase, these activities show thatCCS is a viable option to mitigateCO2 emissions. In preparation of theValidation and Deployment Phases,the RCSPs gathered data necessaryto prepare and conduct geologic andterrestrial eld tests, and made thefollowing key accomplishments:

Established a national networkof companies and professionalsworking to support sequestrationdeployments. The RCSPs broughtan enormous amount of capabilityand experience together to workon the challenge of infrastructuredevelopment. Together withDOE, the RCSPs secured theactive participation of more than500 individuals representing morethan 350 industrial companies,engineering rms, state agencies,non-governmental organizations,and other supportingorganizations.

Raised awareness and support forCCS as a GHG mitigation option.Each RCSP developed creativeand innovative approaches tooutreach and education. Articlesabout sequestration have been

placed in local newspapers,documentaries have been shownon public television, and severalpeople involved in the RCSPsmade appearances on localtelevision programs. All sevenRCSPs developed websites thatdescribe their activities and

several RCSPs experimentedwith innovative, internet-basedoutreach efforts, including amodied chat room for eldingquestions about sequestration andtown hall style meetings.

Advanced understanding of permit ting requirements for future CCS projects. To complywith public and regulatory

requirements and to addresspossible safety and environmentalrisks, CCS projects will requirepermits. Working in collaborationwith the Interstate Oil and GasCompact Commission (IOGCC)and in consultation with theU.S. EPA, the RCSPs assessedrequirements and procedures forpermitting future commercialsequestration deployments.




Identied priority opportunities for sequestration eld tests . TheRCSPs identified high priorityopportunities within their Regionsthat target select eld tests duringthe Validation Phase.

Established a series of protocols for project implementat ion,accounting, and contracts. RCSPactivities in this area focused onthe development of accountingprotocols and support for state ornational GHG accounting registries.

4. Validation PhaseThe Validation Phase focuses oneld tests to validate the efcacyof CCS technologies in a varietyof geologic and terrestrial storagesites throughout the U.S. andCanada. Using the extensive dataand information gathered duringthe Characterization Phase, theseven RCSPs identied the mostpromising opportunities for carbonsequestration in their Regions andare performing 25 geologic eld tests(Figure 22) and 11 terrestrial eld

tests (Figure 23). In addition, theRCSPs are verifying regional CO 2 sequestration capacities, satisfyingproject permitting requirements,and conducting public outreach andeducation activities.

The first four geologic projectslisted in Figure 22 are large-scaleinjections where a commercialpartner is already injecting CO 2 into depleted oil reservoirs andunmineable coal seams for EORand/or ECBM recovery applications.The partner is focusing its effortsto determine the fate of the injectedCO2 through predictive modeling andmonitoring activities. The remainingprojects will involve injection of arelatively small amount of CO 2 into

unmineable coal seams, oil andnatural gas reservoirs, and salineformations to assess the sequestrationpotential of these geologic sites.The RCSPs are working to developinjection and monitoring wells,coordinate injection operations,conduct reservoir modeling, andmonitor the fate of the CO 2. In

addition, the RCSPs are conductingpublic outreach activities and satisfyingthe necessary permit applications. Tosuccessfully conduct these geologiceld tests, the RCSPs are collaboratingwith industrial partners that areproviding the nancial and technicalsupport necessary for the success ofthe program.




Figure 22. Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

Exhibit (TJB 4)

Documents

Transcript of Exhibit (TJB 4)