The global STaTuS of CCS: 2010 - Global CCS Institute

The global Status 

of CCS: 2010

© Global CCS Institute, 2011 

Copyright © to Chapter 6 is owned by the 

International Energy Agency. 

Unless stated otherwise, copyright to this product 

is owned by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage 

Institute Ltd (Global CCS Institute) or used under 

licence. 

Apart from any fair dealings for the purpose of study, 

research, reporting, criticism or review as permitted 

under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part may 

be reproduced by any process without the written 

permission of the Global CCS Institute. 

For enquiries please contact the Global CCS Institute: 

• by telephone: +61 2 6175 5300 

• by email: info@globalcinstitute.com 

• by mail: Global Carbon Capture and Storage 

Institute Ltd, GPO Box 828, Canberra ACT 2601, 

Australia 

The Global CCS Institute has tried to make 

information in this product as accurate as possible. 

However, it does not guarantee that the information 

is totally accurate or complete. Therefore, the 

information in this product should not be relied 

upon solely when making commercial decisions. 

Further, the Institute has no responsibility for the 

persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or thirdparty 

Internet websites referred to in this publication 

and does not guarantee that any content on such 

websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. 

Suggested citation of this report: 

Global CCS Institute 2011, The global status of 

CCS: 2010, Canberra 

ISSN 1838-9481

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Global CCS Institute is an independent, not-for-profit body working to build and share the expertise 

necessary to ensure that carbon, capture and storage can make a significant impact towards reducing the world’s 

greenhouse gas emissions. Established in 2009, the Institute’s mandate is to accelerate the development and 

deployment of CCS to support the efficient and effective management of the risks of climate change. 

The Institute aims to become the leading international centre of excellence for CCS by creating a platform 

for exchange and development of knowledge. In working collaboratively with industry, governments, and 

non-government organisations, the Institute aims to: 

• Share knowledge: Collecting information to create a central repository for CCS knowledge and creating 

and sharing information to fi ll knowledge gaps and build capacity. 

• Undertake fact-based advocacy: Informing and shaping domestic and international low-carbon energy 

policies, and increasing the awareness of the benefi ts of CCS and the role it plays within a portfolio of 

low-carbon technologies. 

• Assist projects: Bridge knowledge gaps between demonstration efforts, and tackle specifi c barriers, 

particularly amongst early movers. 

Christopher Short, Chief Economist of the Institute, led this report. Chester Abellera, Brendan Beck (IEA), 

Sarah Clarke, Edlyn Gurney, Justine Garrett (IEA), Peter Grubnic, Larry Hegan, Angus Henderson, Kathy Hill, 

Gwendaline Jossec, Mat Norton and Andrew Roden authored different chapters and were instrumental in 

completing the report. 

Signifi cant support was also provided from Institute staff including Mark Bonner, Kerry Brooks, Jesse Dang, 

Paige Folta, Maurice Hanegraaf, Meade Harris, Ian Havercroft, Ian Hayhow, Barry Jones, Bill Koppe, 

Stacey Matthews-Krsteski, Akira Masunaga, Mike Miyagaya, Sean McClowry, Martin Oettinger, Electra Papas, 

Jack Parkes, Bob Pegler, Kristina Stefanova, Derek Taylor, Karen Unwin and Crispin Walker. 

A number of international experts provided valuable contributions including Jeroen Alberts (DNV), 

Peta Ashworth (CSIRO Australia), Barend van Engelenburg (Netherlands DCMR Environmental Protection 

Agency), Matthias Finkenrath (IEA), Sarah Forbes (WRI USA), Paal Frisvold (Bellona Europa), Andrew Garnett, 

Dominique Van Gent (Western Australian Department of Industry and Resources), Yoshio Hirama (Japan 

CCS Co Ltd), Michael Kelleher (DNV), Eelco Kruizinga (DNV), Yann Le-Gallo (Geogreen), Yukiyo Matsuda 

(WorleyParsons), Chai McConnell (WorleyParsons), Sandeep Sharma, Jacqueline Sharp (M.K. Jaccard 

and Associates, Canada), Shelley Rodriguez, (CSIRO Australia), Sarah Wade (AJW Inc., Washington USA), 

Neil Wildgust (IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme), Tony Wood (Clinton Climate Initiative) 

1

THE GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS 2010 

CONTENTS 

Units, Abbreviations, Glossary 5 

Executive Summary 8 

1 Introduction 14 

1.1 The challenge 15 

1.2 The need 16 

1.3 The response 18 

1.4 This report 20 

2 Policy frameworks and public financial support 22 

2.1 Scope of the chapter 25 

2.2 Mechanisms for public fi nancial support 26 

2.3 Status of direct public fi nancial support to 

CCS projects 30 

3 CCS projects 38 


3.2 Framework for analysis of CCS projects 40 

3.3 An overview of large-scale integrated CCS 

projects (LSIPs) 48 

4 CO 2 storage 74 


4.2 Recent progress in storage 76 

4.3 Issues and challenges for CO 2 storage 82 

4.4 Types of storage, their characteristics 

and current status 87 

5 CO 2 networks for CCS 92 


5.2 Incentives and risks for a network approach 96 

5.3 Status of CO 2 networks for CCS 98 

6 Legal and regulatory developments 104 


6.2 Key challenges in regulating CCS 106 

6.3 National and regional developments 108 

6.4 International progress 111 

7 CCS costs 114 


7.2 The purpose of cost estimates 116 

7.4 Industrial sectors 124 

7.5 Relative uncertainty across cost studies 125 

8 Regional CCS knowledge-sharing initiatives 128 


8.2 Why knowledge sharing 130 

8.3 The case for effective knowledge sharing 132 

8.4 Sharing knowledge from CCS demonstration 

projects 132 

8.5 Levels of sharing and understanding stakeholders 134 

8.6 Knowledge-sharing mechanisms and tools 136 

8.7 Challenges for knowledge sharing 138 

8.8 Conclusion 138 

9 CCS public engagement 140 


9.2 Key themes in CCS public engagement 143 

9.3 Key public engagement example: Barendrecht 147 

9.4 Public engagement guideline resources 148 

9.5 Snapshot of public engagement CCS case studies 149 

Appendices 152 

Appendix A Country summary of policy frameworks and public 

funding awarded to CCS projects 153 

Appendix B The asset lifecycle model 171 

Appendix C Tables 173 

Appendix D References 196 

2

TABLES 

Table 1 

Public financial support mechanisms for 

CCS projects 27 

Table 2 Major public fi nancial support programs for 

large-scale demonstration projects 32 

Table 3 Technology maturity categories by industry 45 

Table 4 Active CCS LSIPs 49 

Table 5 LSIPs in cement, iron and steel, and pulp 

and paper industries 64 

Table 6 LSIPs by region, by technology and by industry 70 

Table 7 G8 criteria 71 

Table 8 Broad defi nitions of traffi c light 72 

Table 9 Storage – the key questions that must be 

addressed for any geo-storage candidate 87 

Table 10 Types of geological storage and current status 88 

Table 11 CO 2 network initiatives related to CCS 99 

Table 12 United States jurisdictions with advanced 

CCS regulation 109 

Table 13 Comparing costs for emerging IGCC projects 117 

Table 14 

Summary of recently completed CCS design 

cost studies 119 

Table 15 Storage site scenario assumptions and 

outcomes 124 

Table 16 Incremental cost of CCS for industrial processes 125 

Table 17 Types of CCS knowledge 131 

Table 18 Snapshot of public engagement case studies 150 

Table A-1 

Public funding awarded to large-scale projects 

in the power sector 166 

Table A-2 Public funding awarded to industrial, 

large-scale CCS demonstration projects 169 

Table C-1 Technical maturity defi nitions by industry 173 

Table C-2 LSIPs by asset lifecycle stage 175 

Table C-3 Cancelled or delayed LSIPs 188 

Table C-4 Traffi c light defi nitions used to classify LSIPs 

against the G8 criteria 189 

Table C-5 Recent country/regional screening assessments 190 

Table C-6 

Table C-7 

Initiatives for establishing new CO 2 networks 

for CCS 191 

LSIPs building on existing CO 2 infrastructure 

for EOR 194 

FIGURES 

Figure 1 Global CO 2 emissions 15 

Figure 2 Stationary energy-related CO 2 emissions 

from 2004-2007 16 

Figure 3 Global CO 2 emissions and GHG emissions 

reductions 17 

Figure 4 Projected sector CCS contribution in 2050 18 

Figure 5 Technology cycle 24 

Figure 6 Government CCS funding initiatives from 

2005 to 2010 31 

Figure 7 Public funding support commitments to CCS 

by country 34 

Figure 8 Public funding allocations by country 35 

Figure 9 Public funding allocated to large-scale projects 36 

Figure 10 Asset lifecycle model 41 

Figure 11 All active and planned projects by asset 

lifecycle in 2009 and 2010 42 

Figure 12 All active and planned projects by industry 

sector and by asset lifecycle stage 43 


sector and by region 43 

Figure 14 Newly identifi ed active or planned projects 

in 2010 by industry sector and by region 44 


sector and by technology maturity 45 

Figure 16 All active or planned projects by industry 

sector and level of integration 47 

Figure 17 LSIPs by asset lifecycle in 2009 and 2010 48 

Figure 18 Change in LSIP project status from 

2009 to 2010 by region 51 


2009 to 2010 by asset lifecycle stage 51 


2009 to 2010 by industry sector 52 


2009 to 2010 by capture type 52 


2009 to 2010 by storage type 52 

Figure 23 LSIPs by industry sector, storage type 

and location 59 

Figure 24 LSIPs in North America by industry sector 

and storage type 60 

3


Figure 25 

LSIPs in Europe by industry sector and 

storage type 61 

Figure 26 LSIPs by region or country by asset lifecycle 

stage 62 

Figure 27 LSIPs: amount of potentially stored CO 2 

per annum by region 62 

Figure 28 LSIPs: Potentially stored CO 2 per annum 

by industry sector 63 

Figure 29 LSIPs by capture type 64 

Figure 30 

LSIPs in planning and Execute stages: potentially 

stored CO 2 per annum by capture type 65 

Figure 31 LSIPs with pipelines for transport by known 

pipeline length 66 

Figure 32 LSIPs by storage type 66 

Figure 33 LSIPs by storage type and asset lifecycle stage 67 

Figure 34 

Figure 35 

LSIPs: potentially stored CO 2 per annum by 

country and storage type 67 

Summary of LSIPs against traffi c light system 

by each G8 criterion 73 

Figure 36 The number of G8 criteria met by the LSIPs 

by asset lifecycle 73 

Figure 37 World geological storage suitability 77 

Figure 38 Status of country-scale screening assessments 79 

Figure 39 

Figure 40 

IEAGHG R&D Programme proposed 

classifi cation system for evaluating CO 2 

storage resource/capacity estimates 81 

Schematic cash outfl ow undiscounted 

– onshore storage only 3Mtpa 86 

Figure 41 Existing and planned CO 2 pipelines in 

North America 95 

Figure 42 Rotterdam Climate Initiative CCS network 96 

Figure 43 Unrisked long-term capture and storage 

capacities by CCS network-related initiatives 102 

Figure 44 Normalising emerging IGCC project costs 118 

Figure 45 Installed capital costs for 550MW net generation 120 

Figure 46 

Comparing IGCC cost study estimates 

with reported IGCC project costs 120 

Figure 47 Levelised costs of electricity across different 

capture technologies 121 

Figure 48 Variable avoided cost of abatement 122 

Figure 49 Levelised costs as a function of location 123 

Figure 50 

Comparing and contrasting post-combustion 

CCS costs 126 

Figure 51 Comparing and contrasting IGCC capture costs 127 

Figure 52 Benefi ts of effective knowledge sharing 132 

Figure A-1a Australian funding program summary 

– Federal funding 153 

Figure A-1b Australian funding program summary 

– State funding 153 

Figure A-2 Public funding committed to large-scale 

demonstration projects in Australia 155 

Figure A-3a Canadian funding program summary 

– Federal funding 156 

Figure A-3b Canadian funding program summary 

– Provincial funding 156 


demonstration projects in Canada 157 

Figure A-5 European Union funding program summary 158 


demonstration projects in the European Union 159 

Figure A-7 Japanese funding program summary 160 

Figure A-8 Republic of Korea funding program summary 160 

Figure A-9 Norwegian funding program summary 161 

Figure A-10 United Kingdom funding program summary 162 

Figure A-11 United States funding program summary 163 

Figure A-12 Public funding committed to CCS in the 

United States 164 


demonstration CCS projects in the 

United States 165 

4

UNITS, ABBREVIATIONS, GLOSSARY 


UNITS OF MEASUREMENT 

UNITS 

Giga 

10 9 (billion or ‘billion times’) 

Mega 

10 6 (million or ‘million times’) 

Kilo 

10 3 (thousand or ‘thousand times’) 

Micro (μ) 10 -6 (‘one millionth of’) 

EMISSIONS 

ppm 

parts per million 

ppmv 

parts per million volume 

Gt 

Gigatonnes 

Gt CO 2 

Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide 

Gt CO 2e 

Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent 

ENERGY 

GJ 

Giga joules 

kW 

kilowatt 

kWh 

kilowatt hour 

MW 

Megawatt 

MWe 

Megawatts electrical capacity; electric 

output in Megawatts 

MWh 

Megawatt hour 

MASS 

kt 

kilotonnes 

Mt 

Megatonnes or million tonnes 

Mtpa 

Megatonnes or million tonnes 

per annum 

Mtpa CO 2 Megatonnes or million tonnes 

per annum of carbon dioxide 

tpa 

tonnes per annum 

DISTANCE 

km 

kilometre 

MONETARY 

$ million (m) million dollars 

$ billion (bn) billion dollars (1,000 x $ million) 

$ trillion trillion dollars (1,000,000 x $ million) 

PERMEABILITY 

mD millidarcy (μm 2 x10 -3 ) 

TERM 

ACCA21 

Active Project 

ANLEC R&D 

DESCRIPTION 

The Administrative Centre for China’s 

Agenda 21 

If a project is under construction (Execute 

Stage) or in operation (Operate stage) 

Australian National Low Emission Coal 

Research & Development 

ARPA-E Advanced Research Projects Agency - 

Energy 

ARRA 

American Recovery Reinvestment Act 

CAGS 

China-Australia Geographic Storage 

Cancelled project Cancelled projects are those that have 

ceased activities prior to fulfilling their 

intent and have no intention of resuming. 

These can occur at any stage of the 

asset lifecycle. 

Capex 

Capital expenditure 

CCS 

Carbon capture and storage 

CCSR 

CCS ready 

CCUS 

Carbon capture, use and storage 

CDIAC 

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis 

Center 

CDM 

Clean Development Mechanism 

CHG 

China Huaneng Group 

CLEAN 

China Low-Carbon Energy Action Network 

CMC 

Carbon Management Canada Inc. 

CMP 

Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto 

Protocol (CMP) is the Supreme decisionmaking 

body of the Kyoto Protocol. 

CO 2 

Carbon dioxide 

CO 2e 

Carbon dioxide equivalent 

CO2CRC Cooperative Research Centre for 

Greenhouse Gas Technologies 

COP 

Conference of Parties is the supreme 

body of the UNFCCC, which meets once 

a year to review the Convention. The word 

‘conference’ used to mean ‘association’ 

rather than ‘meeting’. 

COP16 

The 16th Conference of Parties of the 

UNFCCC 

5


UNITS, ABBREVIATIONS, GLOSSARY (CONTINUED) 

TERM 

DESCRIPTION 

TERM 

DESCRIPTION 

CPI 

China Power Investment 

HHV 

Higher Heating Value 

CTL 

Coal-to-liquids 

IEA 

International Energy Agency 

CSLF 

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum 

IEAGHG 

IEA Greenhouse Gas 

DECC 

Delayed project 

DoE 

EC 

EDF 

EEPR 

EOR 

EPA 

EPC 

EPS 

ERCB 

ETIS 

EU 

FCO 

FEED 

FGD 

FID 

G8 

GHG 

Greenfields 

HECA 

Department of Energy and Climate 

Change (United Kingdom) 

Delayed projects are those that have 

had activities postponed and, for all 

intents and purposes, stalled relative to 

the project schedule. These projects are 

planned to resume at some point if more 

favourable conditions develop and can 

occur at any stage of the asset lifecycle. 

Department of Energy (United States) 

European Commission 

Environmental Defense Fund 

European Energy Programme for 

Recovery 

Enhanced oil recovery 

Environmental Protection Agency (United 

States) 

Engineer, procure and construct 

Environmental Performance Standard 

Energy Resources Conservation Board 

Energy Technology Innovation Strategy 

European Union 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office 

(United Kingdom) 

Front-end engineering and design 

Flue gas desulphurisation 

Final investment decision 

Group of Eight consisting of France, 

Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, 

United Kingdom and the United States 

Greenhouse gas 

For CO 2 storage, it refers to geological 

formations where no hydrocarbon 

production has occurred within the 

potential storage area. 

For CO 2 capture, it refers to new facilities 

where none previously existed. 

Hydrogen Energy California 

IGCC 

IPCC 

JCCS 

KEPCO 

LCHG 

LCOE 

LHV 

LNG 

London Protocol 

LSIP 

MEF 

MENA 

METI 

MMV 

NER300 

NETL 

NGCC 

NGO 

NPF 

NRDC 

O&M 

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

Japan CCS Company 

Korea Electric Power Corporation 

Low-carbon, high growth 

Levelised Cost of Electricity 

Lower Heating Value 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

1996 Protocol to the Convention on 

the Prevention of Marine Pollution by 

Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 

Large-scale integrated project 

Major Economies Forum on Energy and 

Climate 

Middle East and North Africa 

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and 

Industry (Japan) 

Measurement, monitoring and verification 

Name of the financing instrument 

managed jointly by the European 

Commission, European Investment 

Bank and Member States, so-called 

because Article 10(a) 8 of the revised 

Emissions Trading Directive 2009/29/ 

EC contains the provision to set aside 

300 million allowances (rights to emit 

one tonne of carbon dioxide) in the 

New Entrants’ Reserve of the European 

Emissions Trading Scheme for subsidising 

installations of innovative renewable 

energy technology and carbon capture 

and storage (CCS). 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

Natural gas combined cycle 

Non-governmental organisation 

National Planning Framework 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Operating and maintenance 

6


TERM 

DESCRIPTION 

OCAP 

Organic Carbon Dioxide for Assimilation 

of Plants 

OECD 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

and Development 

Opex 

Operating expenditure 

OSPAR Convention Convention for the Protection of the 

Marine Environment of the North-East 

Atlantic 

petcoke 

Petroleum coke 

Planning Stage If a project is in the Identify, Evaluate or 

Define Stages 

PF 

Pulverised fuel 

R&D 

Research and development 

RFP 

Request for proposal 

ROAD Project Rotterdam Afvang en Opslag 

Demonstration Project (The Netherlands) 

S&I 

Science and innovation 

SANERI 

South African National Energy Research 

Institute 

SBSTA 

Subsidiary Body for Scientific and 

Technological Advice 

SNG 

Synthetic natural gas 

SNH 

Scottish National Heritage 

SoCo 

Southern Company 

SPF 

Strategic Programme Fund 

Synfuels 

Synthetic fuels 

Syngas 

Synthetic or synthesis gas 

TAP 

Technology Action Plan 

TAR 

Technical Assessment Report 

TCM 

Technology Centre Mongstad 

UIC 

Underground Injection Control 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change 

7


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the atmosphere continues to increase, rising to 390 parts per 

million by the end of 2010. At the same time, 2010 was the warmest year on record, ranking equally with 

2005 and 1998. Effi ciently and effectively managing the risks of climate change requires reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO 2 . 

As a parallel challenge, the world’s reliance on fossil fuels remains high. The International Energy Agency 

(IEA) has projected that fossil fuels will account for more than half of the projected 36 per cent increase 

in worldwide energy consumption by 2035. This is projected to occur even if it is assumed that all recent 

environmental and energy security policies around the globe are implemented, including placing a price 

on CO 2 in all OECD countries by 2020. Further, coal is projected to remain the dominant fuel for electricity 

generation as increases in developing country generation needs more than offset projected falls in coal-fi red 

generation in OECD countries. 

IEA scenarios also indicate that carbon capture and storage (CCS) could account for some 19 per cent of 

energy-related emission reductions, on par with renewable energy and other efforts if total greenhouse gas 

(CO 2 e) concentrations in the atmosphere are to be stabilised at 450 parts per million by 2050 (with CO 2 

concentrations stabilised at less than 400 parts per million). CCS refers to a range of technologies that aim 

to capture the CO 2 in fossil fuels either before or after combustion, and store it for the very long term in 

underground formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep saline formations and unmineable 

coal seams. 

In response, governments have increased research, development and demonstration efforts for a range of 

renewable and low emission energy technologies, including CCS. Carbon capture technologies have been 

deployed commercially in the gas processing and chemical industries for some time. However, the same capture 

technologies are considered to be immature and in need of demonstration when applied to the power generation, 

iron and steel or cement industries. In terms of storage applications, while CO 2 use in enhanced oil recovery 

(EOR) has a long history, it requires enhancements in the measurement, monitoring and verification of CO 2 

injected. The use of deep saline formations is much more recent and is only in operation at large-scale in a 

few projects. 

This report, an annual global review of project developments and the drivers behind them, serves as a 

reference point for the broader CCS community in understanding the ‘state of play’ in the development of 

CCS activities and projects globally. 

Our key findings highlight that governments and industry are still in the early stages of implementing largescale 

international programs to shorten the timeframe for the commercial deployment of CCS. These programs 

remain focused on the demonstration phase for developing and improving capture technologies in new industrial 

applications and proving the safe and secure long-term storage of CO 2 . This demonstration phase is likely to last 

for over a decade. 

At this stage, governments have made commitments to support around 25 large-scale projects. Concentrating 

efforts to maximise the chance of a set of large-scale projects proceeding to operation across a number of 

technologies and industries is important to best advance CCS to commercialisation. 

It is also important that the insights obtained from the demonstration phase are used in support of the next-ofa-kind 

projects that initiate technology deployment. While knowledge-sharing initiatives are increasing, there 

is still room for greater cooperation. 

8


At the same time, how quickly broader deployment proceeds beyond the demonstration phase will also depend 

on how quickly other major challenges are addressed during the demonstration phase. For example, it is crucial 

that sufficient storage potential is characterised to support not only the current suite of demonstration projects, 

but also the much larger storage needs of the eventual much larger number of projects that will be required as 

part of global greenhouse gas mitigation efforts. 

Governments are acting on CCS 

The CCS policy frameworks being developed by governments cover a range of activities aimed at 

accelerating the innovation and development of CCS technologies through: 

• demonstrating the safe and long-term effectiveness of CO 2 storage; 

• understanding and improving the large-scale application of CCS; 

• increasing specifi c research and development activities around new capture technologies to improve 

performance and reduce costs; 

• effectively and rapidly sharing lessons learnt; 

• identifying viable geological storage areas; 

• developing legal and regulatory frameworks to protect human and environmental health and safety; and 

• undertaking public awareness and consultation activities. 

The intended outcome of this government action is to bring forward CCS as an operational and economically 

viable technology earlier than if left to the market alone, in order to make a major contribution to the challenge 

of reducing CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere. 

Significant financial support being provided 

The amount of government funding allocated to individual projects out of the total pool of potential 

commitments increased signifi cantly in 2010. In total, governments have made commitments valued at up 

to US$40 billion in order to support CCS demonstration projects. Of this, US$11.7 billion has been allocated 

to specifi c large-scale demonstration projects. A further US$2.4 billion has been allocated to expand research 

and development activities. Twenty-two projects account for 87 per cent of funding to all large-scale projects. 

The funding allocated to specifi c large-scale projects is expected to double in the next couple of years. 

Both small and large-scale projects increased in number 

At the end of 2010, a total of 234 active or planned CCS projects have been identifi ed across a range of 

technologies, project types and sectors. This is a net increase of 21 projects identifi ed since 2009. Of these, 

77 are large-scale integrated projects (LSIPs) around the world at various stages of development. This is a 

net increase of 13 projects in this category. 

A number of LSIPs have progressed through various development phases in 2010, encouraged by a range 

of factors including government funding programs and by the potential revenue from supplying anthropogenic 

CO 2 to oil producers for EOR (this is especially the case in North America). Some of these LSIPs may be in a 

position in 2011 to decide on whether a fi nal investment decision is possible. 

Two large-scale projects have commenced construction since the previous Status Report: the Southern 

Company Integrated Gasifi cation Combined Cycle (IGCC) project in the United States, which will be the world’s 

fi rst large-scale CCS project in the power sector, and the Gorgon Carbon Dioxide Injection Project in Australia. 

9


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

While there has been a net increase in the number of LSIPs, 22 projects in this category have been either 

delayed or cancelled. This is for a variety of reasons, including uncertain economic conditions in national 

economies and the technical and fi nancial challenges proving more sustained than originally expected in 

some cases. This is a natural part of the process of a technology application about to enter the demonstration 

phase at commercial-scale. 

Activity is not uniform 

In terms of geographic distribution, North America accounts for 39 of the 77 LSIPs (31 in the United States 

and 8 in Canada). The allocation of government funding grants to projects is most advanced in this region. 

More so than in other parts of the world at present, capture projects in North America are seeking additional 

revenue from the sale of CO 2 for EOR to improve project commerciality. The prospect of additional revenues 

from the sale of CO 2 to third parties can act as an ‘enabler’ to the deployment of carbon capture technology 

in new applications. CO 2 -EOR systems also have the potential to provide a knowledge base to build upon for 

the broader demonstration of CO 2 storage projects. 

Europe has 21 LSIPs, though projects appear to be moving at a slightly slower pace than in North America. 

This in part refl ects the longer timeframes associated with Europe’s key CCS funding mechanism, the 

NER300 program, as well as uncertain economic conditions. European projects also face signifi cant 

challenges surrounding the use of potential onshore storage sites, underscoring the need to gain public 

endorsement for CCS projects. The most advanced CCS activity in Europe is in Norway (which has two 

operational LSIPs) and in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, with 11 LSIPs under development 

between them. 

Most of the signifi cant CCS projects in China, where fi ve LSIPs have been identifi ed, are driven by major 

state-owned enterprises. China’s LSIPs span a range of industries from power generation through coal to 

chemical to oil and gas. Australia has six LSIPs split between the petroleum sector (CO 2 injection projects 

associated mainly with offshore gas fi eld developments) and projects associated with the capture of CO 2 

from power stations and industrial facilities. 

There are currently no LSIPs identifi ed in key emitter countries such as Japan, India and Russia. 

LSIPs are spread across a number of industries, but of those in development planning the majority (42 projects) 

are in power generation, reflecting the large allocation of government funding support to that sector. Projects in 

the cement, iron and steel and alumina industries have low representation. 

By capture technology, pre-combustion and post-combustion capture systems dominate the LSIPs, with 

33 and 21 projects respectively. There are four proposed demonstration projects using oxyfuel combustion. 

Understanding of storage opportunities are improving 

High-level global CO 2 storage capacity estimates by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2005 

ranged from 1,700-11,000Gt across a variety of storage types, with deep saline formations making up the 

vast majority of suitable geological formations. The IPCC estimated that it was likely (greater than 66 per cent 

probability) that at least 2,000Gt storage capacity was available, with the probability of availability decreasing 

as the upper level of global estimates was approached. By comparison, the IEA scenario for halving emissions 

from energy by 2050 includes up to 10Gt of annual storage by 2050, for a cumulative total of up to 145Gt 

by then. 

10


In the past two years, a number of storage screening assessments have progressed at the national level in 

North America, Europe, Australia, China, India and South Africa. These studies provide value in identifying 

whether a specific region has the potential for significant storage and point to where more localised and sitespecific 

exploration and assessments should be undertaken. These important but early steps to understanding 

national storage opportunities represent progress along a continuum of possible storage resource classifications. 

Progress will also require more exploration and testing to improve the understanding of storage resources to the 

level of ‘practical storage capacity’. This is the highest level of resource classification, being capacity that has a 

reasonable certainty of being available and is ‘bankable’ in terms of providing investors with sufficient confidence 

to raise funds for CCS projects. 

Overall, most of the key OECD countries that anticipate the use of CCS as part of the suite of technologies 

for decarbonising stationary energy production already have a high-level understanding of their potential 

storage capacity. At present, however, there is still limited practical storage capacity at the ‘proved’ level 

required to support large-scale project investment at the magnitude required for CCS to contribute 

meaningful emissions reductions. 

Timelines for site characterisation and location decisions pose challenges 

To progress from the screening level information to a final storage site characterisation consistent with the 

requirements for a final investment decision can take five to ten years in effort and elapsed time. This is 

presenting challenges for demonstration projects that need to have decisions and investment points coordinated 

across the project development lifecycle for each part of the CCS chain. To add to the complexity, different 

entities may be responsible for different parts of the CCS chain for any given project. At the same time projects 

may need to comply with externally imposed timing criteria to be eligible for funding. 

In addition to the challenges of managing these project interdependencies, in the current demonstration phase 

for CCS there is a tendency to examine storage options close to emission sources. This may be done in an 

attempt to contain funding requirements for a demonstration project. 

The desire to locate storage close to the emission source must be balanced with consideration of the storage 

risks of candidate areas. In some cases, storage site selection and commitment may be strongly based on 

the proximity to the emission source without adequately considering a range of storage options – leading to 

a commitment to a single site or area prematurely. As a result, projects may have to recommence storage 

assessment if an area becomes unfeasible due to unfavourable formation properties, perceived risk to the 

public or other land and subsurface resource exploitation. This lack of coordinated analysis can impact 

signifi cantly on timelines and economics for projects. 

Uncertainty around the costs of CCS demonstration projects remains 

The costs associated with investing in, and constructing, large-scale energy projects rose substantially during 

the latter part of the past decade. CCS technology costs have risen in line with this trend, with recent studies 

suggesting that costs are 20-30 per cent higher than indicated in similar studies undertaken only two to three 

years ago. 

Incorporating CCS into a power plant is likely to increase costs by between 40 and 75 per cent depending 

on the technology and fuel source. Recent estimates suggest that for a ‘reference plant’ in the United States, 

the average cost of electricity that would need to be recovered over all output for the entire economic life of 

a generating plant in order to justify the original investment could be in the range of US$120-150/MWh. 

The associated avoided cost of CO 2 ranges from US$60-85/tonne of CO 2 for coal based power stations and 

exceeds US$100/tonne for a gas-fi red power plant. 

11


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

The capital and operating costs of energy production and carbon capture account for over 90 per cent of the 

total cost of the CCS chain. Further, the capital investment costs represents the largest variable element and 

the source of most uncertainty. The published estimates are limited in detail with regard to what is included or 

excluded, but the wide differences refl ect scale, technology selection and design issues, among other factors. 

However, without access to detailed project specifi c information, project based costs provide limited guidance 

on underlying technology costs. 

In addition to the uncertainty around fi nal CCS investment costs for power, there is high variability 

across regions, refl ecting a range of factors. At present, indicative costs for investing in CCS in Europe 

and Japan are higher than in the United States, while costs in Eastern Europe and China are estimated 

to be lower. 

The cost of capturing and storing CO 2 from other industrial processes has not been investigated to the 

extent undertaken for power generation. However, as CO 2 separation already occurs in gas processing 

and some chemical industries (such as fertiliser production), the additional costs incurred refl ect only 

compression, transport and storage. In contrast, application of CCS in the steel industry requires capture 

as well. Overall, estimates of avoided costs in industrial processes range from around US$29/tonne of 

CO 2 for natural gas processing and ammonia production to around US$55/tonne of CO 2 for cement and 

steel production. However, the total increase in commodity costs from CCS application is relatively modest 

compared to the power sector, ranging up to around 15 per cent for steel, and considerably lower for 

natural gas and ammonia. 

Sharing information and public engagement are important 

In the demonstration phase of large complex and capital intensive technologies such as CCS, two important 

challenges are ensuring effective public engagement and delivering appropriate knowledge sharing activities 

to diffuse project learnings as effi ciently as possible across a wide range of stakeholders. 

Engagement with community stakeholders by governments and projects is a critical area to address for the 

successful development of CCS projects. Over the past two years, projects have been delayed, altered or even 

cancelled as a result of public opposition. Where these localised delays are high profi le, the broader industry 

can be impacted. 

Involving stakeholders in collaborative decision making can help create an effective project operating environment, 

particularly where a project has the potential to impact on local liveability and community outcomes. This requires 

establishing trust, communicating the case for CCS in a balanced, fact-based manner and identifying an effective 

value proposition for local communities. 

Given the current low levels of comparable data available for large-scale demonstration projects, it is diffi cult 

to track and report on all CCS public engagement activities globally. However, the existing data highlights that 

while some common strategies exist, there is no single set of public engagement activities that are relevant and 

applicable for each project. Each project requires a tailored approach based on specifi c community attributes 

and needs. 

The challenge of bringing forward the point in time that CCS is deployed on a large-scale depends both on 

the resources committed to expanding the stock of knowledge through demonstrating the technology, and on 

the rate at which that stock of knowledge is diffused throughout the CCS community. This is achieved through 

sharing know-how, experience and lessons learnt from the CCS demonstration activities that governments 

are supporting. 

12


As current initiatives represent a signifi cant commitment of public and private resources, funders are 

looking to maximise the benefi ts of their investment by capturing knowledge gained through project delivery 

in order to support the further development of the next-generation projects demonstrating improved 

CCS technologies. 

There has been signifi cant progress during 2009 and 2010 in defi ning knowledge-sharing arrangements. 

Nonetheless, there are emerging challenges that affect how jurisdictions are implementing such programs 

and how projects are incorporating knowledge-sharing activities into their project schedules. Examples include 

establishing effective contractual arrangements to maximise opportunities for sharing while also protecting 

commercial interests, and aligning programs at the global, regional and national (or state) level to avoid 

duplication. This will require improved coordination between governments and industry to collaborate through 

focused and outcome-driven activities. 

13


1 INTRODUCTION 

Through large-scale CCS demonstration 

projects, governments are seeking to 

establish the safe, long-term geological 

storage of CO 2 and improve the 

performance of CO 2 capture technologies. 

14


1.1 The challenge 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Technical 

Assessment Report (2007) contains three important fi ndings about global warming: 

• warming of the climate system is unequivocal; 

• most of the observed increase in global average temperatures is very likely due 

to human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emission concentrations in the 

atmosphere; and 

• it is likely that there has been signifi cant human-induced warming in the past 

50 years. 

The IPCC estimates the global temperature increase in the coming century to be 

between 1.8-4.0°C, which is much more rapid than any temperature changes 

known to have occurred during the past 10,000 years. 

Reducing human-induced GHG emissions is viewed as a solution to global warming. 

A main challenge to the task of reducing emissions (along with adaptation to climate 

change impacts) is the sustained use and in some places, the increasing share of 

carbon-based fuels in the energy mix such as coal, oil, and natural gas, leading to 

a steady rise in global emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). 

In 2010, the Earth System Research Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration recorded the level of global CO 2 emissions at the Mauna Loa Observatory 

in Hawaii at 390 parts per million volume (ppmv) (Figure 1), with an annual mean rate 

of growth of CO 2 at 2.32ppm per year. 

Figure 1 Global CO 2 emissions 

CO 2 parts per million 

1980 

1985 

1990 

1995 

2000 

2005 

2010 

390 

380 

370 

360 

350 

340 

330 

Average monthly CO 2 levels 

Trend CO 2 levels after adjusting for average seasonal cycle 

Source: Earth System Research Laboratory 

15


1 INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED) 

The International Energy Agency (IEA 2010a) reported that in 2008, developing countries started 

to emit more CO 2 than developed countries, which is primarily due to the increased use of coal 

in developing countries. As early as 2006, Non-Annex I (developing) countries have surpassed 

Annex I (developed) countries in CO 2 emissions from the stationary energy sector (Figure 2). 

Figure 2 Stationary energy-related CO 2 emissions from 2004-2007 

Gt CO 2 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

Annex I countries 

Non-Annex I countries 

Source: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool Version 8, World Resources Institute. 

1.2 The need 

This trend seems likely to continue into the future due to the need to ensure energy security and 

maintain economic resilience. 

To limit climate change, emissions need to be reduced signifi cantly. 

In 2010, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference 

of Parties 16 (COP16) adopted a non-legally binding aspiration to limit global temperature 

increases from pre-industrial levels to 2°C. This is equivalent to stabilising greenhouse gas 

concentrations in the atmosphere to about 450ppmv of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2-e) by 2050. 

As of 2008, global energy emissions accounted for 41 per cent of total emissions. Stabilising CO 2 

in the atmosphere at any given level requires that annual emissions be brought down to more 

than 80 per cent below current levels eventually (Stern 2007). The task of reducing total global 

emissions by this amount is likely to require the elimination of emissions from the energy sector. 

Achieving decarbonisation in the energy sector is a challenge to be met by a number of 

technologies. From an energy perspective, all clean energy solutions – be they large-scale solar 

thermal with storage, geothermal, energy effi ciency, demand management or cleaner fossil fuels 

– will be needed to meet ever-growing energy demands. From a cost perspective, the lower cost 

abatement options such as energy effi ciency and low-cost renewables are expected to be taken 

up more quickly in the near to medium term (IEA 2010b). During the medium and longer-term, 

more expensive options such as nuclear, solar thermal and carbon capture and storage (CCS) 

will play a stronger role in abatement strategies. CCS continues to be recognised as playing an 

important role in long-term mitigation in all climate change modelling such as IEA’s 2010 World 

Energy Outlook, United States Energy Information Administration’s 2010 Annual Energy Outlook 

and the IEA CCS Roadmap. 

16


For example, the IEA estimates that, to contribute to the amelioration of global warming through the 

least-cost emissions reduction pathway, 100 industrial-scale CCS projects need to be operational 

by 2020 and 3,400 projects by 2050. The implementation of 3,400 CCS projects would contribute 

approximately 10Gt of CO 2 or 19 per cent of the reduction in energy emissions by 2050 (Figure 3). 

Figure 3 Global CO 2 emissions and GHG emissions reductions 

Gt CO 2 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

WEO 2009 450 ppm case 


Renewables 

Nuclear 

ETP2010 analysis 

Power generation efficiency and fuel switching 

End-use fuel switching 

End-use fuel and electricity efficiency 

Baseline emissions 57Gt 

BLUE Map 1 emissions 14Gt 

19% 

17% 

6% 

5% 

15% 

38% 

1 

Blue Map scenario reduces all global energy related emissions to half their current levels by 2050 (IEA 2008). 

According to the IEA, emissions reduction that could be achieved using CCS will come from the 

power, industrial and synfuel sectors, with the power sector accounting for more than 50 per cent 

(Figure 4). Industrial applications such as gas processing, steel and iron production, and cement 

manufacturing also need effective mitigation solutions. These activities have very constrained 

mitigation options as they need carbon-based feedstock. In contrast, the power sector has 

a number of zero emission options. It is also true that, when CCS is coupled with co-fi ring of 

biomass or biofuels (such as ethanol production), it can deliver high prospects for negative 

emissions (that is, removing emissions from the atmosphere). 

17



Figure 4 Projected sector CCS contribution in 2050 

Biomass power 4.8% 

Biomass synfuel 20.2% 

Natural gas synfuel 4% 

Coal power 39.6% 

Gas processing 4.3% 

Iron and steel 10% 

Pulp and paper 0.2% 

Chemicals 3.3% 

Cement 5.3% 

Gas power 8.4% 

Source: IEA, CCS Roadmap (fold out) 2010 

CCS application in the oil and gas sector – enhanced oil recovery (EOR) – has been successfully 

proven for over two decades. These activities provide early opportunities for low-cost capture 

demonstrations. Stakeholders are working together to demonstrate and deploy CCS, not only in 

the power sector and gas separation, but also in energy and CO 2 -intensive industries such as 

cement, chemical, and iron and steel. 

This represents substantial challenges for CCS over the next four decades as: 

• CO 2 fl ow rates surpass the global oil and gas industry; 

• an additional US$2 trillion in investment needs to be secured (IEA 2009); and 

• a potential need for an average of more than 100 new projects per year to be constructed after 

2020 to reach 3,400 by 2050 (IEA 2009). 

1.3 The response 

18 

Governments are responding to the climate change challenge and addressing the need to 

reduce GHG emissions by accelerating innovation across a range of low-carbon technologies and 

pursuing international agreements to coordinate emissions reduction. For CCS, governments are: 

• recognising the need to accelerate the CCS technology innovation process through increased 

demonstration and research and development (R&D) investments; 

• developing regulatory frameworks in support of CCS; and 

• coordinating with other governments in the international arena in both CCS-specifi c issues 

and broader issues under the UNFCCC. 

UNFCCC and carbon pricing 

Positive outcomes were delivered for CCS at COP16. The UNFCCC’s main scientifi c advisory 

body, the Subsidiary Body for Scientifi c and Technological Advice (SBSTA), agreed by consensus 

to the legitimacy of CCS as a long-term mitigation option; and the Meeting of the Parties to the 

Kyoto Protocol (the supreme decision-making body of the Kyoto Protocol) agreed to include 

CCS as an eligible project activity under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).


The challenges facing CCS deployment are not all technological. Many are associated with long-term 

investment uncertainty and financial and commercial challenges even for demonstration projects. 

Many of the issues concerning CCS deployment in certain sectors where it is considered commercial 

or near commercial can be addressed using the current state of knowledge. This is supported by 

the UNFCCC decision to include CCS under the CDM pending the resolution of modality and 

procedural issues. 

To reduce GHG emissions, it is essential that the right incentives exist to encourage the 

deployment of existing and next generation low-carbon technologies. Carbon pricing is a 

necessary requirement. However, carbon pricing by itself will not suffi ciently support the 

innovation process for CCS technology. Investments in innovation generate knowledge that spills 

over to other fi rms and users reducing the returns to innovators and incentives for private fi rms 

to marshal suffi cient resources to fully and effi ciently support all innovation activities, including 

demonstration processes. The absence of public funding leads to underinvestment and a slower, 

less effi cient path of innovation. In large energy-intensive industries such as power generation 

or iron and steel production, this issue is exacerbated by the long lifespan of capital investments 

and the signifi cant uncertainty about the long-term future. Public fi nancing of CCS is essential to 

accelerate the pre-commercial demonstration process. 

Building the conditions for CCS demonstration 

Capture technologies have been deployed commercially in the gas processing and chemical 

industries for some time. The IPCC has assessed that certain CCS technologies, such as pre and 

post-combustion capture technologies, as being commercially mature in selected applications 

(IPCC 2005), although oxyfuel combustion is still considered to be in the development phase. 

Being commercially mature means that the technology is well-understood and applied in selected 

commercial applications, but only under conducive market conditions. 

Similarly, for storage applications, EOR is characterised as a mature market technology (although 

questions remain around permanence). Deep saline formations and depleted oil and gas fields 

are considered to have progressed beyond demonstration phases, but their operation is limited 

to select commercial applications with certain issues regarding general applicability still to be 

addressed (IPCC 2005). 

Development of CCS technologies relies on the existence of domestic technology and innovation 

policies to mitigate the barriers that currently prevent new technologies from progressing to 

commercialisation. Based on these considerations, many governments have embarked on a major 

program to demonstrate the use of CCS technologies in a range of sectors. The power sector is the 

dominant focus of this demonstration program in light of the scale of the mitigation challenge for 

this sector as well as the level of understanding on capturing CO 2 derived from other industries. 

Nonetheless, CCS technologies are still considered immature when applied to power, iron and steel, 

or cement industries. 

CCS policy frameworks being developed by governments cover a range of activities including: 

• accelerating the innovation and development of CCS technologies through: 

– funding a demonstration program that seeks to demonstrate the safe and long-term 

effectiveness of CO 2 storage as well as understanding and improving the operation of 

large-scale application of CCS; 

– increasing specific R&D activities around new capture technologies to improve performance 

and reduce costs; 

19



– requiring funding recipients to expand knowledge-sharing activities to share lessons learnt 

faster; 

• identifying viable geological storage areas; 

• developing legal and regulatory frameworks to protect human and environmental health and 

safety; and 

• undertaking public awareness and consultation activities. 

The intended outcome of the demonstration program is to bring forward in time the CO 2 abatement 

potential of CCS as an operational and economically viable technology earlier than if left to the 

market alone. The overarching goal is to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of 

managing the risks of climate change. 

CO 2 network and storage 

As a large-scale mitigation solution, CCS requires a CO 2 transport network and associated 

infrastructure to integrate point source emissions with geological storage solutions. In many industries, 

such networks are deemed natural monopolies requiring regulated returns, and in many cases, they 

are initially publicly owned. Further, without substantial exploration for suitable storage sites, as well 

as governments instituting an adaptive and risk-based approach to subsequent regulatory approvals, 

CCS implementation will not achieve its mitigation potential and remains without its social licence to 

operate. It is also important that regulators even for the early projects adapt a fit-for-purpose, objectivebased 

approach when addressing the approvals for storage development and monitoring, measuring 

and verification to minimise excess expenditure. Large public-private partnerships are required to 

overcome these challenges, as is increasing certainty in regards to associated property rights (be they 

tradable emission allowances or third-party access to storage and CO 2 transport networks). 

International multilateral forum perspective 

These interconnections are well recognised within international forums on CCS. For example, the 

Clean Energy Ministerial under the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, a United States 

Government initiated forum, launched its technology action plan on the development of Carbon 

Capture, Use, and Storage (CCUS) led by Australia and the United Kingdom. The technology action 

plan outlines the key actions needed to help the wide-scale deployment of CCS, and the Major 

Economies Forum on Energy and Climate encourages their adoption by its member countries. 

Actions under the technology action plan include: 

• comprehensive legislative and regulatory frameworks addressing (among other things) 

long-term storage and fi nancial liability; 

• provision of government investment through public-private partnerships in integrated 

CCS projects (including both power and industrial plants); 

• the driving down of technology costs and sharing or reducing risk; and 

• provision of government investment to accelerate understanding of storage sites. 

1.4 This report 

This report consolidates the current understanding of the level and nature (both public and 

private) of global CCS activities, as well as the major opportunities and challenges experienced 

by large-scale integrated projects (LSIPs). The report also seeks to assist domestic governments 

20


focus their responses to accelerate the demonstration phase of CCS in order to bring forward 

the point in time when CCS can be deployed commercially. 

In Chapter 2, entitled ‘Policy frameworks and public financial support’, the nature and scope 

of global public financial support for CCS demonstration is characterised. Although substantial 

programs for supporting CCS have been announced by governments, for many, the process of 

implementing the program and allocating support to specific projects is still underway. Input-based 

grant programs awarded on a competitive basis are the most prominent of policy mechanisms. 

Chapter 3 entitled ‘CCS projects’ gauges global CCS activity at the project level. Although it indicates 

a number of projects have been newly identified during the past year (across the various stages of 

the technology innovation chain), it also reveals that many previously commenced projects have 

been delayed or cancelled due to investment uncertainty or due to technological reasons. Another 

looming challenge for the CCS community is that, while the vast majority of planned large-scale 

integrated projects (LSIPs) are located in developed regions and concentrated in the power sector, 

future emission growth challenges are increasingly found in the developing regions and other 

industry sectors. 

Chapter 4 entitled ‘CO 2 storage’ maps the status of efforts to better understand and assess 

viable storage sites with suitable geology, capacity and injectivity. In the longer term, as carbon 

constraints tighten, the associated investment in commercial CO 2 capture plants and common 

user infrastructure will increasingly depend on access to suitable storage solutions. 

Chapter 5 entitled ‘CO 2 networks for CCS’ gives an account of the status of CO 2 networks for 

advancing CCS. This includes proposals for establishing new networks specifi cally for CCS, 

as well as leveraging off the existing CO 2 infrastructure for EOR in North America. Overall, 

the benefi ts of a ‘network’ approach is infl uencing a signifi cant share of proposed large-scale 

demonstration projects, though it could also introduce additional costs and risks. 

Chapter 6 entitled ‘Legal and regulatory developments’ provides an update on global progress 

in implementing frameworks to regulate demonstration projects as well as to support large-scale 

commercialisation of CCS solutions. Efforts are focused on how long-term liability is currently being 

addressed, treatment of associated property rights, post-closure site stewardship, and the increasingly 

important requirement by many sovereign governments for new coal-fired plants to be ‘CCS ready’. 

Chapter 7 entitled ‘CCS costs’ focuses on public information on costs that emerged during 2010. 

This includes three full technology comparison studies undertaken by the International Energy Agency 

(IEA), the United States Department of Energy (DoE) and WorleyParsons. In addition, costs from 

emerging projects are presented and contrasted. The challenges of uncertainty, both in technology 

and financing, arising from the initial large upfront investment costs for large-scale demonstrations 

continues to have an impact on the investment environment. 

Chapter 8 entitled ‘Regional CCS knowledge-sharing initiatives’ presents a review of regional 

CCS knowledge-sharing initiatives and their development from mid-2009 to late 2010. 

Specifi cally, it examines the frameworks established to collect and share knowledge created 

from publicly funded demonstration projects in a number of regions across the globe. 

Finally, Chapter 9 entitled ‘CCS public engagement’ summarises the vitally important approaches 

being employed to engage and inform the public in relation to CCS project developments. 

It highlights key themes and guidelines to help provide project proponents with an understanding 

of the factors affecting the development of effective public engagement strategies. 

21


2 POLICY 

FRAMEWORKS AND PUBLIC 

FINANCIAL SUPPORT 

Large-scale projects are receiving 

substantial support with US$11.7 billion 

allocated internationally to date and 

more than this amount yet to be 

allocated. Twenty-two projects account 

for 87 per cent of funding. 

22

2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT 

US$25 billion 

in direct government funding has 

been announced for the development 

of CCS since 2005, of which around 

US$14 billion has been allocated to 

specific CCS projects and research 

and development activities. 

80 per cent 

of all confirmed funding 

announcements have targeted, 

or are targeting large-scale 

CCS demonstration projects 

exclusively. 

77 per cent 

of government funding directed 

to large-scale CCS demonstration 

projects was allocated to power 

generation projects. 

KEY MESSAGES 

• Since 2005, governments have made announcements for funding CCS projects that have 

been valued at between US$33 and US$41 billion. Around US$14 billion has been allocated to 

specifi c CCS projects. Up to US$21 billion is expected to be allocated in the next couple of years. 

• Almost 90 per cent of all confi rmed funding announcements (around US$22 billion) have 

targeted, or are targeting large-scale CCS demonstration projects, while almost US$12 billion 

in government funding has been specifi cally awarded to large-scale projects since 2005. 

• The largest CCS funding initiatives were announced in 2008 and 2009 (up to US$31.7 billion). 

In 2010, funds provisioned in the previous years were allocated to projects, or an allocation 

process for those funds was put in place. 

• The United States is the largest provider of direct government funding to CCS projects, with close 

to US$8.8 billion in both state and federal funding. Around US$2.6 billion of that funding is yet to 

be allocated. 

• Signifi cant funding initiatives have been announced by the European Commission and the 

national governments of Norway and the United Kingdom, with a total of up to US$17.4 billion 

for this region. However, most of those funds are yet to be allocated, with US$14.7 billion 

(84 per cent) still available. 

• Seventy-seven per cent of government funding directed to large-scale CCS demonstration projects 

was allocated to power generation projects; the remainder was mainly allocated to projects in the 

oil and fertiliser industry (14 per cent), and coal gasifi cation (5 per cent). 

• There is a strong early-stage support for pre-combustion capture technologies, which represent 

46 per cent of funds allocated to large-scale demonstration projects. However, government 

funding is increasingly shifting towards the development of oxyfuel (18 per cent) and postcombustion 

(33 per cent) capture technologies. 

• At this stage, there is limited clarity on how large-scale CCS demonstration projects will be 

supported by governments in the operational stages. 

23


2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT (CONTINUED) 

Government policies for accelerating the development and deployment of CCS are driven by 

broader climate change policy to meet domestic targets and international commitments to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The importance of CCS in supporting climate change policy 

is also infl uenced by objectives regarding energy security in a carbon-constrained world that 

will continue to use fossil fuels, at least for the medium term. Depending on the country, other 

complementary policy objectives might include: 

• fostering a clean energy technology sector that can compete globally in offering CCS 

technologies or services; 

• reducing the carbon footprint of exports; 

• promoting regional economic development where opportunities exist to establish a CO 2 

‘hub’; and 

• injecting CO 2 to undertake enhanced hydrocarbon recovery in conjunction with permanent 

geological storage. 

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions most effi ciently and effectively requires placing a price on 

carbon, a price that is fairly uniform and pervasive within each country and across countries. 

Placing a price on carbon would assist in deploying existing low-carbon technologies and provide 

additional incentives for innovation to improve existing technologies and develop new low-carbon 

technologies. However, a carbon price alone is not suffi cient to achieve the level of innovation 

and deployment of new technologies as innovation and technology development face a number 

of challenges, or market failures, which need to be addressed through government intervention. 

A key challenge is that the benefits to society from innovation cannot be fully captured by those 

undertaking costly research and development including pilot or large-scale demonstrations. 

Investments in innovation generate knowledge that spills over to other firms and users, reducing the 

returns to innovators and the incentive to marshall sufficient resources to fully support innovation 

in new technologies. Overall, this leads to underinvestment in developing new technologies and a 

slower and less efficient path of innovation, including for responding to the challenges of climate 

change. In large energy-intensive industries, this issue is exacerbated due to the long life span of 

capital investments and the significant uncertainty about the long-term future. 

Governments, through technology and innovation policies, directly address the risks and barriers 

faced along the cycle in commercialising new technologies (Figure 5). 

Figure 5 Technology cycle 

INVENTION 

INNOVATION 

ADOPTION 

DIFFUSION 

Basic and Applied R&D 

Creating new commercial 

products or processes 

Demonstration and 

initial use 

Increased adoption 

Source: Rubin (2005) 

24


CCS policy ‘frameworks’ defi ne the support measures, initiatives, or interventions undertaken 

by governments to accelerate it through the technology cycle. Beyond accelerating specific R&D 

activities around new capture technologies or CO 2 storage, this includes providing incentives for 

early-stage, large-scale CCS demonstration projects in the Adoption phase. These incentives 

include direct fi nancial support through mechanisms such as grant or tax credit programs. 

As explained in more detail below, they also include more indirect incentives such as the use 

of regulations to direct behaviour through setting emissions performance standards or the like, 

on top of any regulated carbon price. 

These incentives may also be complemented by other policy measures for supporting and 

requiring knowledge sharing on CCS technology investments, undertaking public awareness and 

consultation activities, seeking support for CCS under the UNFCCC, establishing CCS-specifi c 

legal and regulatory frameworks to protect human and environmental health and safety, or 

identifying viable geological storage sites. 

2.1 Scope of the chapter 

This chapter examines the status of existing policy mechanisms for providing direct financial support 

to CCS projects, in particular large-scale demonstration projects. The chapter does not focus on 

other, more indirect financial incentives for providing support to large-scale projects, largely because 

such mechanisms are yet to be widely implemented. Regarding broader CCS public policy, other 

chapters in this report cover government measures related to regulation, storage, knowledge sharing, 

capacity development and community engagement. 

The structure of this chapter will include: 

• an overview of the different types of mechanisms for governments to provide public fi nancial 

support to CCS projects; and 

• a global summary of the level and types of direct fi nancial support committed by governments 

to date. This will include reporting on overall global commitments by governments to support 

activities along the entire CCS technology cycle, in aggregate and by different mechanisms, 

and will then provide more detail around programs for supporting large-scale demonstration 

projects, including how much has been allocated from these programs to specifi c projects. 

More specifi c details and analysis on the most active countries in making public fi nancial 

commitments to CCS are provided in the Appendices of this report (Appendix A). 

25



2.2 Mechanisms for public financial support 

There are several types of fi nancial support mechanisms to offset some of the cost constraints 

and risks faced by private developers undertaking large-scale, fi rst-of-a-kind demonstrations. 

These mechanisms fall into two broad categories (Table 1): 

• input-based support mechanisms – that provide fi nancial support in setting up and running 

CCS projects and infrastructure, regardless of the outcome in terms of successfully stored 

CO 2 ; and 

• performance-based support mechanisms – that provide fi nancial support based on the 

successful storage of CO 2 , or based on delivering a product (e.g. generating electricity) while 

storing CO 2 . 

The mechanisms summarised in Table 1 are oriented towards a ‘mixed-funding’ engagement 

model where governments have a shared role in the fi nancial support or ownership of a CCS 

project, but the private sector is fully responsible for building, operating, designing, and 

managing the project. Not included in Table 1 are mechanisms based on other engagement 

models such as a ‘public utility’ model where: 

• the government self-builds and operates a project; 

• the government outsources to the private sector certain aspects of the execution of a project; or 

• the government fully owns and fi nances a project. 

26


Table 1 Public financial support mechanisms for CCS projects 

CATEGORY TYPE DESCRIPTION 

Input-based 

support 

mechanisms 

Direct capital 

grants 

Equity/ownership 

position 

Debt financing 

Operating cost 

subsidies 

Tax measures 

• Government provides upfront payments to cover part of the capital 

costs in designing, planning, testing, and constructing a CCS project. 

• Payments can be tied to milestones at different stages of execution 

before operation. 

• Government provides full or partial equity financing for a CCS project. 

This involves the government taking an ownership position of assets, 

which it could subsequently sell to operators at a discounted price. 

This could form the basis for a type of ‘public-private partnership’ 

arrangement. 

• This could apply to governments owning ‘surplus’ capacity, for 

example, in a CO 2 pipeline, that it later sells to future projects still 

to be developed. 

• Under a partial equity position, the government could hold a separate 

class of shares that forgoes dividends until the developer earned a 

certain level of return. 

• Governments can choose to reserve full or partial ownership in the 

storage component of a project, with a view to provide greater certainty 

regarding long-term liabilities. 

• There are several debt financing options for governments to underwrite 

the financing of CCS projects that would otherwise have much higher 

financing costs (such as higher interest rates) in private capital 

markets, including: 

– concessional loans from the government with zero or low interest, 

or with minimal or no payments for a certain period; 

– government loan guarantees; and 

– subordinating government loans to ‘mezzanine capital’ that 

represents a claim on a company’s assets to just above common 

shares. 

• Annual payments to subsidise operating costs. 

• While not necessarily pre-set, these payments are not directly tied 

to performance. 

• A range of tax incentives that reduce the taxes a project developer 

pays regardless of performance, such as tax credits, allowable 

deductions or accelerated depreciation of capital. 

• Their impact will depend on the structure of both the measure and 

the corporate entity undertaking the project and to what extent it is 

paying or subject to taxation. 

27



Table 1 Public financial support mechanisms for CCS projects 

CATEGORY TYPE DESCRIPTION 

Performancebased 

support 

mechanisms 

Standard storage 

payments 

Contract for 

differences 

Bonus and 

malus regimes 

• The government provides a pre-established subsidy that is paid per 

unit of CO 2 successfully stored. Payments could flow to the capture 

or storage developer. 

• The government provides payments to developers per unit of CO 2 

stored based on the difference between the market price of carbon 

and a government guaranteed ‘strike’ price of carbon that is needed 

to make a CCS project economically viable. This payment measure 

is designed to take into account uncertainty in longer-term carbon 

market movements. 

• If structured as a ‘one-way’ contract, the developer is not required 

to pay the government if the market price for carbon exceeds the 

‘strike’ price. If structured as a ‘two-way’ contract, the developer would 

reimburse the government when the carbon market price is higher 

than the ‘strike’ price. 

• Similar to a contract for difference, where a CCS project would get a 

‘bonus’ payment per unit of CO 2 reduction below a certain threshold, 

with the bonus based on the difference between the market price of 

carbon and a strike price for the cost of CCS. 

Feed-in-tariffs 

Power purchase 

agreements 

Tax measures 

• In parallel, a ‘malus’ penalty payment is imposed per unit of CO 2 

emitted above a certain threshold. This financial penalty would be on 

top of emissions permits that still need to be purchased, and would 

again equal the difference between the carbon price and a strike price 

for the cost of CCS. 

• Payment of a tariff to electricity generators per unit of electricity 

generated in conjunction with CCS. 

• The tariff can be incorporated within the overall pricing structure 

of the electricity market. This passes the costs of CCS directly onto 

consumers in the form of higher electricity prices. 

• It could also be a direct subsidy payment from the government to 

the electricity provider. 

• The government (or a regulated electricity wholesaler) enters into a 

long-term power purchase agreement with the operator of a plant that 

is generating electricity in conjunction with CCS. Under the agreement, 

the payments received by the operator are usually above the market 

price of electricity in order to cover the additional costs of CCS. 

• The difference between the wholesale market price of electricity 

and power purchase agreement price could be either funded by the 

government, or passed directly on to consumers in the form of higher 

electricity prices. 

• There is a range of possible tax incentives tied to performance such 

as forgoing royalties on enhanced hydrocarbon recovery projects that 

also undertake permanent storage. 

28


For many of the input and performance-based mechanisms outlined in Table 1, funds are 

transferred by direct payments (for example grants) from the government to a project. For example, 

a project can receive direct grant payments to assist with relevant capital costs such as design and 

construction or operating costs. Governments (or special agencies that they create) often source the 

funds for such transfer payments from general government revenue, which can include reduced 

taxation liabilities. Other sources include special mechanisms established by governments to raise 

funds outside of general revenues specifically for CCS (and some other clean energy technologies). 

For example, the Government of the United Kingdom is reviewing a proposal for a dedicated 

CCS levy on electricity sales, to support a second phase of CCS demonstration projects. Also, the 

European Union’s NER300 program is based on accumulating funds for CCS through a special 

auction of 300 million tonnes of permits under its Emissions Trading System. 

Tax measures can also be considered a form of direct funding, as they result in reduced tax 

collection from companies that invest in the development of CCS technology. For example, 

the United States Federal US$3.15 billion Power Sector and Industrial Gasifi cation Tax Credit 

Programs provide a corporate income tax credit for investments in clean coal projects. Other 

examples include the United States Federal Carbon Sequestration Tax Credit program that 

provides a subsidy for each tonne of CO 2 stored, as well as the Alberta (Canada) CO 2 Projects 

Royalty Credit Program that reduced royalty payments for a set of CO 2 -EOR pilot projects. 

Public fi nancial support for CCS can also be provided more indirectly through debt fi nancing 

measures such as government loan guarantees or low-interest loans, though the cost and risks 

are generally still borne by the taxpayer. Such measures have not been widely implemented to 

date, with the main exceptions being the United States DoE’s authorisation in 2005 to provide 

upwards of US$6 billion in loan guarantees to commercial-scale coal power and gasifi cation 

projects that incorporate CCS or other emissions reduction technologies, and the US$3 billion 

in low-cost loans that can be authorised by the government of the State of Illinois. 

Other ‘indirect’ forms of public financial support that are not yet widely implemented are legislated 

or regulated feed-in tariffs or power purchase agreements, which can be structured to provide 

certainty to power plants for selling their electricity at a particular price in order to help cover the 

additional costs of CCS. For example, the State of Illinois was considering legislation that would 

require retailers to purchase electricity at above market rates from the proposed Taylorville Energy 

Center Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant. While costs are transferred directly to 

consumers, there could also be costs and risks that are still borne by the project developer and the 

government, depending on the nature of final contractual arrangements. 

Performance standards for the level of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases that can be emitted 

(for example, per amount of electricity produced) also place an effective, but implicit, price on 

carbon by requiring costs to be incurred for meeting the standard, thus triggering investments in 

low-carbon energy technologies. The implementation of an emissions performance standard can 

be equivalent to making CCS mandatory for coal-fi red power stations, as it is the case with the 

standard announced in the United Kingdom in December 2010 (UK Energy and Climate Change 

Committee 2010). Further, in December 2010, the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) announced that a nation-wide emissions performance standard for power stations 

and refi neries would be introduced by 2012 under the Federal Clean Air Act. 

29



In order to reach full-scale operation, a costly large-scale CCS demonstration project may 

require a combination of public fi nancial support measures. For example, the Taylorville IGCC 

project benefi ted from a US$2.6 billion loan guarantee from the United States DoE, as well as 

a further US$417 million in federal tax credits. 

Among the European projects that have received initial grant funding for feasibility and 

engineering studies under the European Commission’s European Energy Programme for 

Recovery (EEPR), many will require further funding under programs such as the European 

Union’s NER300 program to fully advance. This set of projects refl ects how one type of funding 

program can be more targeted to advancing projects through the initial planning stages, after 

which the projects are reconsidered based on the results of this initial work. The reconsideration 

determines whether the projects merit the more signifi cant funding under another phase of the 

same program, or a different program, that often is only able to support a smaller set through 

to being operational. 

2.3 Status of direct public financial support to CCS projects 

Overview of funding announcements and strategies 

From 2005 to 2010, a total of slightly more than US$25 billion 1 in direct public fi nancial 

support to CCS have been announced through various government funding programs and 

initiatives (Figure 6). In addition, the Government of the United Kingdom has committed to 

expand its demonstration program from one to four CCS projects by 2015. Although the 

funding mechanism and level of funding have yet to be announced, this could increase the 

total level of funds available for large-scale CCS demonstrations to a range of US$37- 40 billion. 2 

New announcements of fi nancial support for CCS slowed signifi cantly in 2010 to around 

US$850 million. This follows a fi ve-year period where new funding announcements specifi c 

to CCS rose from less than US$15 million in 2005 to around US$10.5 billion in both 2008 

and 2009 (Figure 6) 3 . This increase refl ects announcements of major ‘fl agship’ programs for 

advancing large-scale demonstration projects such as Australia’s CCS Flagships Program, 

the European Union’s NER300 Program, and Alberta’s (Canada) CCS Fund (Table 2). 

Stimulus spending in response to the global fi nancial crisis funded a signifi cant share of these 

commitments (more than 35 per cent). For example, the United States American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act 2009 committed more than US$3.1 billion to fund CCS projects, while 

the EEPR committed US$1.3 billion. 

Government funding 4 programs or announcements that exclusively target large-scale demonstration 

projects account for 80 per cent of all direct funding announcements since 2005. In addition to 

the support to large-scale projects, more than US$2.4 billion in government funding has been 

committed to support CCS research activities and pilot-scale demonstrations since 2005. 

30 

1 

This is subject to assumptions regarding NER300 auction prices, as well as the share allocated to CCS. 

2 

The nation-wide CCS Electricity Levy, introduced in the United Kingdom Energy Bill of 2010 to support CCS demonstration projects, 

is being reviewed by the United Kingdom Government. A 2009 Impact Assessment prepared by the United Kingdom Department of 

Energy and Climate Change estimated that an electricity levy would have to raise £7.2-9.5 billion (US$11.4-15 billion) to advance four 

demonstration projects. With the CCS Demonstration Competition separately funding the first project, for this report, the requirement by 

the electricity levy to fund an additional three projects is assumed to range from £5.6-7.1 billion (US$8.8-11.2 billion). 

3 

Figure 6 depicts the year in which overall financial support programs were announced or committed, not when subsequent allocations 

to specifi c projects were announced, nor when actual transfers of funds from governments to projects occurred. 

4 

‘Funding’ in this report refers to all direct financial support, for example including tax credits, not just allocations such as grants from 

the receipt of government revenues.


These initiatives support overall commitments made by individual governments or countries to 

facilitate the deployment of up to 25 large-scale demonstration projects. It is expected that there 

will be an overlap in the projects that receive support under the various programs in Europe, 

including the six projects supported under the EEPR, the NER300 Program allocation and 

support under other programs announced by individual European Union country states (Table 2). 

A majority of this public financial support is from input-based support mechanisms, in particular 

grant programs that represent 56 per cent of all direct funding announcements for large-scale CCS 

projects. 5 Most grant programs cover capital expenditures, usually upon completion of predefined 

milestones over the design, construction, and commissioning of a project. Within these grant 

programs, only 18 per cent (US$2.2 billion) of total funds committed include operating subsidies, 

which are often combined with capital grants under the same program. For example, the Alberta 

CAD$2 billion (US$1.98 billion) CCS Fund for large-scale demonstration projects in Canada will 

provide capital grants for the design and construction phases, and 40 per cent of the funds granted 

to a project will be provided as a performance-based subsidy once operation begins. The United 

Kingdom CCS Demonstration Competition for an initial large-scale project is also expected to cover 

operating costs, for an amount yet to be specified. 

Risk-based or performance-based support mechanisms account for around 26 per cent of all 

announced funds at almost US$6 billion, while industry-specifi c tax credits, which account for 

around 18 per cent (more than US$4.1 billion) of all direct funding announcements, are mostly 

found in the United States. 

Several commitments of fi nancial support are conditional on leveraging additional investment, 

from both industry and other levels of government. For example, the Australian Government’s 

AU$1.85 billion (US$1.8 billion) CCS Flagship Program for funding two to four large-scale 

integrated CCS projects is expected to contribute one third of project costs, with funding expected 

to be matched by both the Australian State Governments and industry, thus leveraging up to 

AU$3.5 billion (US$3.4 billion) in additional support. 

Figure 6 Government CCS funding initiatives from 2005 to 2010 6 

US$bn 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Funding announcements 

Stimulus spending 

Cumulative 

5 

Excluding the United Kingdom CCS Electricity Levy. 

6 

The United Kingdom CCS Electricity Levy (US$8.8-11.2 billion), which was announced in 2009, is not included in this figure. 

31



Table 2 Major public financial support programs for large-scale demonstration projects 

COUNTRY 

POLICY 

INITIATIVE 

FUNDING 

GOVERNMENT 

MODEL 

COMMENTS 

PROJECTS 

SUPPORTED 7 

Australia 

CCS Flagships 

Program 

AU$1.8bn 

(US$1.76bn) 

Under 

negotiation 

Four projects shortlisted and 

awarded funds for pre-feasibility 

studies. 

2-4 

Federal funding to be matched 

by state governments and industry. 

Canada 

Clean Energy 

Fund 

CAD$610m 

(US$603m) 

Capital grant 

only 

Three projects selected included 

in Alberta CCS Fund. 

Alberta CCS 

Fund 

CAD$2bn 

(US$1.97bn) 

Capital grant 

with milestones 

and opex 

subsidy 

Up to 75% of pre-agreed 

incremental costs 

•


Table 2 Major public financial support programs for large-scale demonstration projects 

COUNTRY 

POLICY 

INITIATIVE 

FUNDING 

GOVERNMENT 

MODEL 

COMMENTS 

PROJECTS 

SUPPORTED 7 

South 

Korea 

CCS Test 

Programme 

US$648.4m 

Government 

industry 

partnership 

In support of research, 

development and deployment 

activities for two projects. 

2 

United 

Kingdom 


Demonstration 

Competition 

GBP£1bn 

(US$1.58bn) 

Capital grant, 

opex subsidy 

and claw back 

mechanisms 

• Capex support at achievement 

of milestones. 

• Operational support per tonne 

abated. 

(1) 

CCS Electricity 

Levy (Second 

Phase of CCS 

Demonstration 

Competition) 

GBP£5.6- 

7.1bn 

(US$8.84- 

11.22bn) 

• ‘Claw back’/CFD mechanism. 

To be negotiated Consideration is being given to 

raising funds to support three 

additional CCS demonstration 

projects in the United Kingdom, 

including capex and opex, through 

an electricity levy. 

4 

(3) 

United 

States 

Clean Coal 

Power 

Initiative 

US$1.7bn 

Capital grant 

with milestones 

and opex 

subsidy 

• Up to 50% pre-agreed 

incremental CCS costs. 

• No more than 50% contribution 

during each phase of the project. 

FutureGen US$1.0bn Government 

industry 

partnership 

Cost-sharing arrangement between 

governments and industry partners. 

Industrial 

Carbon 

Capture and 

Storage 

Power Sector 

and Industrial 

Gasification 

Tax Credits 

US$1.43bn Capital grants Federal grants for demonstration 

and research projects with CO 2 

capture from industrial sources 

for storage or beneficial reuse. 

Twelve projects received funding 

for preliminary feasibility studies, of 

which three have been awarded an 

additional US$612m in grants. 

US$3.15bn 

Federal 

investment tax 

credits 

Tax credits of 15-30 per cent for 

IGCC and advanced combustion 

facilities in the power and industrial 

gasification sectors with CCS, up to 

a maximum amount. To date ten 

projects have applied for and been 

accepted to receive the credit. 

10 

Carbon 

Sequestration 

Tax Credit 

US$1.0bn 

Federal tax 

credit 

Tax credit for each metric tonne of 

qualified CO 2 captured and stored 

or used in EOR. Overall limit of 75 

million tonnes of CO 2, at US$10/ 

tonne for EOR and $20/tonne for 

direct storage. For projects storing 

not less than 500,000 tonnes per 

annum. 

9 

Funds are considered allocated when a commitment to allocate a specific amount to a specifi c project has been publicly announced. 

It does not necessarily mean that funds have been transferred to projects. 

33



Of the direct funding programs announced since 2005 for CCS, slightly more than 50 per cent 

(or US$13 billion) has been subsequently awarded and allocated to specifi c projects. 9 Most of 

these allocations have gone to 33 different large-scale demonstration projects. 

Programs in the United States have allocated the highest amount to specifi c projects at 

US$6.1 billion, representing 70 per cent of its total program commitments to CCS, with 

another US$2.6 billion still available to CCS projects (Figure 7). Jurisdictions such as Canada, 

the Republic of Korea, Japan and Norway have allocated all, or almost all, of their fi nancial 

commitments to CCS to specifi c projects. In contrast, the European Union has allocated only 

30 per cent of its total commitments to CCS, with around US$3.1 billion in funding still available. 

The significant share of European Union funding that is still unallocated reflects that the selection 

process for the NER300 Program, which is expected to provide €2.0-2.3 billion (US$2.8-3.1 billion) 

in support for large-scale demonstration projects, is still underway. The winning projects in the 

Australian Government’s AU$1.85 billion (US$1.8 billion) CCS Flagships Program are also yet to be 

announced, although four projects were short-listed for pre-feasibility studies in December 2009. 

Similarly, the selection process for the first round of the United Kingdom’s CCS Demonstration 

Competition is nearing completion, 

Figure 7 Public funding support commitments to CCS by country 10 

US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

United States 6.1 2.6 

Australia 

0.9 4 


1.3 3.1 

Canada 

United Kingdom 

Norway 

South Korea 

Japan 

Netherlands 

3 

1.6 

1.3 

0.8 

0.4 

0.2 

10 

Allocated 

Unallocated 

UK CCS Electricity Levy 

0.3 

In 2010, while significantly less new funding was announced compared to 2008 and 2009, many 

jurisdictions were still occupied with the project allocation process. Almost all announced funding 

programs have their selection processes underway if they have not already made their allocations 

to projects. The second phase of the United Kingdom’s CCS Demonstration Competition (proposed 

to be funded via the CCS Electricity Levy) is the only major financial support program announced 

between 2005 and 2010 for which a selection process is yet to be formally launched. 

Even for major programs that have allocated a significant share or most of their announced funding to 

specific projects, such as the Alberta US$1.98 billion CCS Fund in Canada, the contractual details that 

need to be established before funds can be transferred to projects were still being negotiated in 2010. 

34 

10 

The United Kingdom CCS Electricity Levy’s value used in this fi gure and subsequent quantitative analysis is GBP6.3 billion (US$10bn), 

which is the midpoint of the estimated range of GBP5.6 billion (US$8.8bn) to GBP7.1 billion (US$11.2bn).


A number of major project allocations were made in 2010. The largest amount granted to a single 

project was US$1 billion that was re-allocated to the revised FutureGen 2.0 demonstration project 

in Illinois. Also in 2010, the European Commission announced the distribution of €1 billion 

(US$1.3 billion) to six CCS projects under the EEPR. 

Of the US$11.7 billion allocated to large-scale demonstration projects, the United States has 

allocated the greatest amount at over US$5 billion. The next largest commitment has been 

made by Canada, which has allocated US$2.8 billion, and the European Union has allocated 

US$1.3 billion (Figure 8). 

Figure 8 Public funding allocations by country 

US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

United States 

Canada 


Norway 

Australia 

South Korea 

Japan 

Netherlands 


Large-scale 

R&D and Pilot 

Portfolio of projects 

Almost 60 large-scale CCS demonstration projects have received government funding worldwide, 

although in varying amounts: 

• twenty-nine of the projects that were granted funds received more than US$100 million and 

account for 90 per cent or total allocated funds (or US$10.4 billion); and 

• twenty-two projects received more than US$200 million, and seven received more than 

US$500 million, mainly in the United States and Canada. 

FutureGen 2.0 in the United States received US$1 billion, the greatest amount of funding 

(Figure 9). 

An overview of the public funds that have recently been granted to large-scale CCS demonstration 

projects in the power generation sector and other industries is presented in Tables A-1 and A-2 

(Appendix A). More details regarding the advancement of large-scale demonstration projects are 

provided in the ‘CCS projects’ chapter of this report (Chapter 3). 

35



Figure 9 Public funding allocated to large-scale projects 11 

Support (US$m) 

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 

Project 

FutureGen 2.0 

Quest CCS Project 

TransAlta Project Pioneer 

Southern Company IGCC 

Texas Clean Energy Project (NowGen) 

ACTL/Agrium/Northwest Upgrader 

ROAD (Netherlands) 

Taylorville IGCC 

Lake Charles Gasification 

Korea CCS-2 12 

Korea CCS-1 12 

AEP Mountaineer 235-MWe CO2 Capture 

HECA 

SaskPower Boundary Dam 3 Project 

Swan Hills 

Air Products Project 

Mongstad CCS Full-Scale 

The Compostilla Project 

Vatenfall Jänschwalde 

Hatfield 

Belchatow 

Tomakomai 

Victorian CarbonNet 

ZeroGen Commercial-Scale Project 

Porto Tolle 

Karsto Full Scale 

Faustina Hydrogen 

ADM Company Illinois Industrial CCS 

Antelope Valley Station PCC 

Longannet 

Kingsnorth Demo Plant 

Gorgon Project 

Weyburn-Midale Storage Project 

Spectra Fort Nelson 

Wandoan Power 

The Collie Hub 

Shell Mississippi CO2 Project 

Nth California CO2 Reduction Project 

Sweeny Gasification 

Good Spring IGCC 

Praxair 

CEMEX - CO2 Capture Plant 

Boise White Paper Mill 

Power 

Industrial 

11 

Variable year dollars. 

12 

Funding amounts attributed to the Korean CCS-1 and CCS-2 projects were evenly split based on the total Korean Government funding 

for demonstration activities, although project-specific allocation decisions are yet to be made. 

36


37


3 CCS 

PROJECTS 

Buoyed by government funding support, 

large-scale demonstration projects are 

progressing through various planning 

stages. Some are expected to decide 

whether or not a final investment decision 

is possible in 2011. 

38

3 CCS PROJECTS 

234 

active or planned CCS projects 

have been identified across a range 

of technologies, project types and 

sectors. 

77 

of these are large-scale 

integrated projects. 

65 

large-scale demonstration projects 

are in various stages of development 

planning (those stages of the asset 

lifecycle prior to a final investment 

decision). 

KEY MESSAGES 

• Project activity has been signifi cant during the past year, with the number of newly identifi ed projects 

being offset by delays and cancellations. In 2010, 234 active or planned CCS projects have been 

identifi ed across a range of technologies, project types and sectors. Seventy-seven of these projects 

are LSIPs. Of these 77 LSIPs, there are eight operating projects and a further four projects are in the 

execution stage of the asset lifecycle. There are 65 LSIPs in various stages of development planning 

(those stages of the asset lifecycle prior to a fi nal investment decision). 

• All eight operating LSIPs and the four in execution are linked to the oil and gas sector: they either 

capture CO 2 via natural gas processing, or they inject CO 2 for EOR. There are 42 LSIPs in development 

planning in the power generation sector. There are two iron and steel projects, one cement project and 

one pulp and paper project among the LSIPs. 

• The Gorgon Carbon Dioxide Injection Project in Australia and the Southern Company IGCC Project 

in the United States moved into execution in 2009 and 2010 respectively, increasing the number of 

LSIPs in the Execute stage of the asset lifecycle from the two reported in 2009 to four in 2010. 

• Most LSIPs are in developed countries (notably the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia), 

with a few in emerging markets such as China. 

• The United States has the largest amount of newly identifi ed LSIPs and continues to dominate project 

activity. This is fuelled by a range of incentives being offered by the government as well as the extensive 

use of EOR. 

• Europe has experienced the largest number of cancellations and delays of LSIPs but has also had the most 

number of projects move forward in the asset lifecycle. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands have 

the largest number of projects in the European LSIP list, with six and five LSIPs respectively. Countervailing 

pressures are impacting project development in Europe: while public funding (European Union and some 

national governments) is supporting activity, weak economic conditions and difficulties surrounding use of 

onshore storage sites are two factors that have increased uncertainty in investment decision making. 

• Pre and post-combustion capture technologies continue to dominate LSIPs, especially in the power 

industry. There are four proposed demonstrations of CO 2 capture using oxyfuel combustion. 

• The transport of CO 2 for LSIPs is dominated by pipelines. Potential storage of CO 2 is split fairly evenly 

between EOR and deep saline formations. 

• EOR will likely continue to be a common form of potential storage in the near to medium term. While 

it can act as an ‘enabler’ for a less costly and faster mechanism for the demonstration of capture 

technologies, further enhancements in the monitoring and verifi cation of injected CO 2 to demonstrate 

permanent storage are considered necessary. Storage in deep saline formations offers much greater 

storage potential in the longer term. However, the time and expense of proving up such storage, 

especially in offshore applications, should not be underestimated. 

• Many LSIPs in the Define stage have adequate funding to complete their current asset lifecycle stage of 

development but a large number of projects in the Identify and Evaluate stages may not progress unless 

additional funding is forthcoming. 

• In 2011, a number of LSIPs may have completed all necessary studies to decide on whether a final 

investment decision is possible. 

39


3 CCS PROJECTS (CONTINUED) 


The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the global status of CCS projects following 

a comprehensive survey undertaken in the period June to August 2010 (and subsequently updated 

for significant project developments). A detailed assessment is provided of LSIPs that form the core 

pool from which the final successful projects will progress through to operation. This report builds 

on an initial survey of projects that was undertaken in April-May 2009 for the Strategic Analysis of 

the Global Status of CCS (WorleyParsons et al. 2009). 

3.2 Framework for analysis of CCS projects 

The distribution and progress of CCS projects is considered in the following three ways: 

• the stage of a project’s development; 

• the level of technology maturity being used in the project; and 

• the level of integration – through capture, transport and storage. 

Together, these three approaches form a framework for monitoring and understanding the 

status of CCS projects. 

The stages of a project’s development 

The asset lifecycle model represents the various stages in the development of a project, 

small or large, as it moves through planning, design, construction and operation (Figure 10). 

The asset lifecycle model refl ects the decision points in a project lifecycle at which developers 

either decide to continue to commit resources to refi ne the project scope, costs and risks further 

or to cancel or delay the project on the basis that the expected future revenue streams will not 

cover the expected project costs (for further discussion see Appendix C). 

40


Figure 10 Asset lifecycle model 

FINAL INVESTMENT DECISION 

PLANNING 

ACTIVE 

Project phase 

IDENTIFY 

EVALUATE 

DEFINE 

EXECUTE 

OPERATE 

Developer’s 

goals 

Establish 

preliminary 

scope and 

business 

strategy 

Establish 

 

options and 

execution 

strategy 

 

and execution 

plan 

 

and construction 

 

maintain and 

 

Select concept 

Start-up 

Activities 

 

screening 

studies 

 

project capital 

cost (±30-35%) 

and operating 

costs (±15-20%) 

 

to be assessed 

 

 

studies 

 

design 

 


cost (±20-25%) 

and operating 

costs (±10-15%) 

 

planning 

 

studies 

 

engineering 

 

 


cost (±10-15%) 

and operating 

costs (±5%) 

 

an engineering, 

procurement and 

construction 

supplier 

 

engineering 

 

 

 

 

operating 

organisation 

 

management 

 

 

 

maintenance 

support 

Modified from: WorleyParsons 2009 

This sequential decision approach reduces the uncertainty surrounding the project while 

managing upfront development costs. For example, to progress from the Evaluate to the 

Defi ne stage, project proponents are expected to have completed pre-feasibility studies and 

identifi ed the preferred development concept to take into FEED. To progress from the Defi ne 

stage to Execute, the level of project defi nition and assessment must be suffi cient to allow a 

fi nal investment decision (FID) to be made. It can take up to seven years for a large complex 

energy project to reach this stage. 

There are 234 active or planned CCS projects identified by the Institute at all scales (bench, pilot, 

demonstration and commercial). Since 2009, 63 projects have been newly identified, although a 

number of these are now known to have been already in existence in 2009. At the same time, 

37 projects were delayed or cancelled since 2009. 

41



Ninety-nine projects, or 42 per cent, of all active or planned projects in 2010 are in the Execute 

or Operate stage, and a further 47 per cent are in the Evaluate or Defi ne stage (Figure 11). Since 

2009, there are an additional 23 projects in the Operate stage, of which nine are newly identifi ed 

(and all are at the pilot or small-scale demonstration size). Some projects in the ‘planning’ stages 

have progressed into greater defi nition with 47 projects now in the Defi ne stage (an increase of 

11 projects). However, the total number of projects in the Identify stage has been reduced by 

almost 50 per cent. 

Figure 11 All active and planned projects by asset lifecycle in 2009 and 2010 

Number of projects 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Identify 

Evaluate 

Define 

Execute 

Operate 


2009 

The bulk of CCS activity occurs where there is clear government support. Figures 12, 13 and 

14 show signifi cant levels of activity in the power industry, which accounts for almost half of 

all active and planned project activity in 2010. The electricity and heat sector accounts for 

41 per cent of global emissions (IEA 2009, p. 322) and has to date been the main benefi ciary 

of government arrangements in support of large-scale demonstration of CCS. On a regional basis, 

the highest level of activity is in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada and China. 

42


Figure 12 All active and planned projects by industry sector and by asset lifecycle stage 

Number of projects 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 

Power generation 

Transport and/or storage 

Enhanced oil or gas recovery 

Gas processing 

Fertiliser production 

Chemical production 

Synthetic natural gas (SNG) 


Oil refining 

Iron and steel production 

Cement production 

Alumina production 

Pulp and paper 

Hydrogen production 

Various/not specified 

Identify 

Evaluate 

Define 

Execute 

Operate 

Figure 13 All active and planned projects by industry sector and by region 










Oil refining 







USA 

Europe 

Australia and New Zealand 

Canada 

Asia (excl. China) 

China 

Middle East and Africa 

South America 

43



Figure 14 Newly identified active or planned projects in 2010 by industry sector and by region 






Oil refining 








USA 

Europe 


Canada 


China 


Projects and the level of technology maturity in use 

While transport and storage each bring specifi c technological challenges, it is the CO 2 capture 

process that is heavily technology-dependent. Certain CO 2 capture processes have been in 

use commercially for many decades, mainly in industrial activities for purifying gas streams 

in non-combustion environments such as the oil and gas and chemical sectors. For largescale 

environments such as power generation, iron and steel and cement, a key challenge is 

‘transferring’ the scale of operation of capture processes that are commercially successful in 

other sectors. 

To compare the status of technologies being considered for CCS deployment, four categories 

are used to describe the level of technology maturity in use: commercial, demonstration, pilot 

and bench (Table C-1 in Appendix C). These are defi ned primarily by the scale of the activity 

within a particular industry (Table 3). For example, a commercial process is offered for sale by 

one or more reliable vendors with standard commercial guarantees (Folger 2010). In contrast, 

a large-scale demonstration activity is the integration of technologies into a full-size system to 

demonstrate viability and commercial readiness in a particular application. At the pilot stage, 

a process or technology is being tested in a realistic environment, usually at one to two orders 

of magnitude smaller than a full-scale demonstration, after having been fi rst successfully 

constructed in a controlled environment (so-called bench or laboratory scale). 

44


Table 3 Technology maturity categories by industry 

INDUSTRY UNITS COMMERCIAL 1 DEMONSTRATION PILOT BENCH 

Electric power – biomass MW, net 80 8 4



In assessing the technical maturity of CCS systems, one key aspect is the required dynamic 

(time-dependent) response of the CO 2 capture process relative to the host system into which 

the capture process is embedded (integrated). Capture processes must be integrated within 

a host facility in such a way that the host facility meets the operational demands of its market. 

The operation of capture processes in power generation – for example – where there is 

signifi cantly varying output over relatively short time periods – may need to be very different 

to operation in currently deployed industries (for example, in the oil and gas and chemicals 

industries where output is generally steady). Accordingly, the fi rst commercial-scale deployment 

of a capture technology in a new sector (for example, power generation) is still considered to 

be a ‘demonstration’ project, even though the capture technology used is operating at 

commercial-scale in other industries. 

Projects by level of integration 

In addition to the asset lifecycle stage and technology maturity, projects can be analysed 

according to their level of integration – from capture, to transport, and storage. Some projects 

focus exclusively on the capture, transport or storage of CO 2 , while other projects are broader 

in scope and may include a combination of components or cover the full CCS chain and be 

considered fully integrated. Of the 234 projects, 150 projects are considered integrated projects, 

of which 65 are fully integrated with a single proponent who is pursuing all aspects of the 

CCS chain; and 85 projects are ‘integrated but dependent’ projects (Figure 16). 

Integrated but dependent projects have two or more proponents collaborating to develop an 

integrated project. Each proponent is responsible for delivering an aspect of the project such 

as the capture and compression of CO 2 . One example of an integrated but dependent project 

is the Dakota Gasifi cation project, which feeds the Weyburn and the Midale EOR projects and 

is considered an integrated system despite the elements of the CCS chain being owned and 

operated by separate entities. 

46


Figure 16 All active or planned projects by industry sector and level of integration 










Oil refining 







Integrated but dependent 

Fully integrated 

Capture-only 

Storage-only 

Transport and storage 

Capture ready 

Capture and transport 

More than 60 per cent of projects are focused on developing integrated projects in which the 

full CCS chain is demonstrated. Integration is one of the challenges facing CCS where the existing 

plant and all aspects of the CCS chain work together and are optimised so that continuous plant 

production and the capture, compression, transport and storage of CO 2 can occur effi ciently. 

The large number of integrated projects also highlights that project proponents believe that 

the CCS chain can form a complete and workable system. 

That there are few projects focused only on transport can be attributed to this being a more 

established area that can be largely incorporated into a project as needed. Many of the 47 captureonly 

projects are centred on developing improved capture processes, solvents and equipment 

to reduce the high costs and less than optimal performance associated with the use of existing 

capture technologies. The 28 storage-only projects are concentrated on improving storage 

characterisation, monitoring and containment practices and processes and developing greater 

understanding of how CO 2 behaves once injected into the subsurface. Proponents are undertaking 

preparatory work on these separate aspects so that they (or the research from these projects) can 

support integrated systems in the future. Potential examples include the HARP Project (led by ARC 

Resources) and the WASP project (led by the University of Calgary) which have both commenced 

characterisation of potentially large, deep saline formations to provide storage opportunities to 

current and future large emitters in its region (Alberta, Canada). 

47



3.3 An overview of large-scale integrated CCS projects (LSIPs) 

Of the 234 projects, 77 are considered to be LSIPs. This section examines their status by 

reviewing their position in the asset lifecycle, the regions where activity is underway, the industry 

sector breakdown and examining the capture, transport and storage elements. 

A listing of the 77 LSIPs and their main characteristics is provided in Table C-2 in Appendix C. 

In this report the scale criteria for selecting LSIPs is defi ned as: 14 

• not less than 80 per cent of 1 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of CO 2 captured and stored 

annually for coal-fi red power generation; and 

• not less than 80 per cent of 0.5Mtpa of CO 2 captured and stored annually for other emission 

intensive industrial facilities (including natural gas-fi red power generation). 

LSIPs developments in 2010 

The total number of active and planned LSIPs increased from 64 in 2009 to 77 in 2010 (Figure 17). 

There has been an increase in the number of active LSIPs. While there has been no change in the 

number of projects in the Operate stage (eight), there are now four projects in the Execute stage (an 

increase from the two reported in 2009). All of these 12 projects are in, or have linkages to, the oil 

and gas industry. 

The most recent LSIP to become operational is Snøhvit in Norway in 2007. During the past 

18 months, two additional LSIPs have progressed to the Execute stage: the Gorgon Carbon 

Dioxide Injection Project in Australia and the Southern Company IGCC Project in the United 

States. The Final Investment Decision for the Gorgon project was announced in September 2009 

while the Southern Company project entered execution in 2010. 

Table 4 lists those projects in the Operate and Execute stages. 

Figure 17 LSIPs by asset lifecycle in 2009 and 2010 


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Identify 

Evaluate 

Define 

Execute 

Operate 


2009 

14 

The 2009 Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of CCS (WorleyParsons et al. 2009) used different criteria – 1 million tonnes per annum 

of CO 2 captured and stored annually for all industries. The effect of applying the new criteria to the 2009 data is described in ‘The Status 

of CCS Projects: Interim Report 2010’ (Global CCS Institute 2010). All 2009 data used in this report are presented using the new 2010 

criteria and updated project information (including information discovered subsequent to the publication of the Interim Report). 

48


Of the eight operating projects there are fi ve projects that are considered ‘full’ CCS projects in 

that they demonstrate the capture, transport and permanent storage of CO 2 utilising suffi cient 

measurement, monitoring and verifi cation (MMV) systems and processes to demonstrate 

permanent storage. The remaining three projects exhibit the capture, transport and injection 

of CO 2 but need to implement further MMV systems and processes to be consistent with the 

demonstration of permanent storage. Similar enhancement around the implementation of 

adequate MMV systems exists for the two projects currently in the Execute stage in the United 

States utilising EOR. 

These projects, which do not include the full MMV regime that would normally be consistent 

with permanent storage, are included because learnings, especially from the capture elements, 

can inform future developments. The capture element of CCS projects is usually by far the 

largest absolute cost component of CCS deployment. It is where the need for cost reduction and 

production learning effi ciencies is greatest. The Southern Company IGCC Project, for example, 

is the fi rst LSIP from the power sector to move into the Execute stage, representing a signifi cant 

milestone for the large-scale demonstration of capture technology. 

Table 4 Active CCS LSIPs 

NAME LOCATION CAPTURE STORAGE 

Operation stage 

Sleipner CO 2 Injection Norway Gas processing Deep saline formation 

Snøhvit CO 2 Injection Norway Gas processing Deep saline formation 

In Salah CO 2 Injection Northern Africa Gas processing Deep saline formation 

Weyburn-Midale CO 2 Monitoring 

and Storage Project 

Rangely Weber Sand Unit CO 2 

Injection Project 

Canada/ 

United States 

Pre-combustion (synfuels) 

EOR with MMV 

United States Gas processing EOR with MMV 

Salt Creek Enhanced Oil Recovery United States Gas processing EOR 

Enid Fertiliser United States Pre-combustion (fertiliser) EOR 

Sharon Ridge EOR United States Gas processing EOR 

Execution stage 

Southern Company IGCC Project United States Pre-combustion (power) EOR 

Occidental Gas Processing Plant United States Gas processing EOR 

Enhance Energy EOR Project Canada Pre-combustion (fertiliser 

and oil refining) 

EOR 

Gorgon Carbon Dioxide Injection Project Australia Gas processing Deep saline formation 

As expected for a technology that is in the early stages of being ‘demonstrated’ in new operating 

environments, most projects are in the planning stages and major decisions and commitments 

are still required before they can proceed to the Execute stage. While the number of projects in 

the active stage has not greatly changed, there has been an increase in the number of projects 

(by 11) in the planning stages (where there are 65 projects in various stages of development). 

The increase in projects in planning masks some signifi cant movements between the individual 

stages. This movement refl ects a wide range of factors including: 

49



• There are newly identifi ed projects coming into the LSIP data set: both ’new’ projects identifi ed 

and entries that were previously in the wider data set but not considered as an LSIP at that 

time and have since ’evolved’ into such; 

• There are projects that have progressed through decision gateways (for example, have moved 

forward from the Evaluate to the Defi ne stage); 

• There are projects that have been cancelled or delayed (Table C-3 in Appendix C); 

• There are projects whose status has been reassessed as more information became available 

resulting in the project moving back a stage in the asset lifecycle; and 

• There are projects that have stayed in the same stage (though there will of course have been 

progress or otherwise within the stage). 

Contributions to the change in the number of LSIPs between 2009 and 2010 are shown in 

Figures 18-22. 

Highlights from these fi gures include: 

• Forty-two LSIPs appear in both the 2009 and 2010 data sets. Twenty-seven have remained in 

the same stage, 12 have advanced in stage and three have been reassessed (moved back in 

stage). Of the 12 projects that have advanced, most are now in the Define stage (Figure 19). 

Eleven of the 12 are in power generation. Of the nineteen projects in the Identify stage in 2009, 

seven have advanced to the Define stage in 2010. 

• At the same time, a large number of LSIPs have been either newly identified or delayed or 

cancelled. Thirty-five newly identified LSIPs are included in the 2010 Report. These projects 

are concentrated in the Evaluate stage. Of these 35 newly identified projects, 23 are ‘new’ and 

12 are ‘evolved’ (Figure 19). Twenty-two projects have been delayed or cancelled across all the 

planning stages. 

• Around half of the newly identifi ed LSIPs are in the United States (and have a bias towards 

EOR as a storage solution). While Europe has a number of newly identifi ed projects, the major 

trends are in the number of LSIPs cancelled or delayed as well as the number that have 

progressed in stage. Of the other regions, movements in Canada, Australia and New Zealand 

are largely offsetting each other; China is progressing its stable of projects (Figure 18). 

• Changes by industry sector are dominated by power generation (Figure 20). With respect to 

technology type, it is diffi cult to identify a discernible trend (the main point to note being that 

projects employing post-combustion technology represent the largest grouping of projects to 

have advanced in stage) (Figure 21). 

• All types of storage solutions continue to be pursued (Figure 22). Projects employing ‘direct 

geological storage’ types dominate both the cancelled and delayed category as well as projects 

that have progressed in stage. 

The clustering of projects around the advanced stages of planning compared to the 2009 Report 

(see also Figure 17) reflects, in large part, the significant support provided by governments 

during the past two to three years. The policy and business challenge for 2011 is to translate the 

progression of projects from the advanced planning stages into a series of successful FIDs. In 

the Institute’s assessment, some LSIPs in 2011 should be in a position to complete their concept 

definition studies. This will allow them to decide whether they can take a final investment decision 

to progress into detailed design and construction. These projects include the Rotterdam Afvang 

50


en Opslag Demonstration (ROAD) project in Europe, Project Pioneer in Canada, and Projects 

Mountaineer and Trailblazer in the United States. 

The decline in projects in the Identify stage (Figure 17) should not necessarily be viewed as an 

adverse development. CCS is not yet in a steady-state commercially viable situation where the 

project development funnel is constantly being replenished. As noted in Chapter 2, governments 

in a number of countries have made significant commitments (and appeared to have concentrated 

their efforts) in order to support approximately 25 LSIPs into the demonstration phase. As such, in 

the absence of additional government funding support, it is unlikely that the current large number 

of projects in the planning stages is sustainable into the demonstration phase. A key challenge for 

CCS will be to take the lessons from the demonstration projects that proceed and use them for the 

next-of-a-kind projects that initiate broader deployment. 

A full listing of changes in LSIPs is given in Table C-2 in Appendix C. 

Figure 18 Change in LSIP project status from 2009 to 2010 by region 

Number of projects 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

Newly identified 

Stage unchanged 

Cancelled/delayed 

Progressed 

Reassessed 

USA 

Europe 

Canada 


China 



Figure 19 Change in LSIP project status from 2009 to 2010 by asset lifecycle stage 


Identify 

Evaluate 

Define 

Execute 

Operate 


Status unchanged 


Progressed to 

Reassessed to 

51



Figure 20 Change in LSIP project status from 2009 to 2010 by industry sector 





Progressed 

Reassessed 






Oil refining 


Ethanol plant 





Figure 21 Change in LSIP project status from 2009 to 2010 by capture type 





Progressed 

Reassessed 

Pre-combustion 

Post-combustion 


Oxyfuel combustion 


Figure 22 Change in LSIP project status from 2009 to 2010 by storage type 





Progressed 

Reassessed 

Deep saline formations 

EOR 

Depleted oil and gas reservoirs 

Deep basalt formations 


52


CCS development in Europe 

There have been two major (offsetting) factors infl uencing the progress on LSIPs in Europe. 

Firstly, the continuing weak economic performance of many countries has contributed to a delay 

in large-scale investment decision making, including in the energy sector. Many companies, 

including electrical utilities, have signifi cantly reduced earlier plans. This has resulted in delays 

or the cancellation of a number of important projects or has changed corporate strategies. 

Against this is the funding that has already been made available through the European Energy 

Programme for Recovery (EEPR) in Europe and, more recently, the call for proposals for projects 

to be funded under the NER300 program. Several proponents in Europe have developed projects 

in line with the criteria of these programs. For example, the Romanian CCS Demonstration 

Project (Getica), which was initiated in 2010 will apply for funding to capture and store 1.5Mtpa 

of CO 2 from a power plant at the Turceni Energy Complex. 

Other factors that affect project development in Europe include: 

• There is clear political support for the development and demonstration of the technology 

in only a small number of countries. The lack of widespread political support for CCS is 

correlated with the level of public acceptance for the technology, especially in areas around 

potential storage sites. There has been strong resistance to onshore storage in countries such 

as Germany and the Netherlands and, to a certain extent, in Denmark and Poland. 

• There is continued opposition (especially by some environmental NGOs) to approve any new 

coal-fi red power plants, even if such plants have plans to include CCS. This is, for example, 

the case at Hunterston in the United Kingdom. 

• At this stage, there is limited focus on demonstrating large-scale industrial facilities with CCS. 

However, the NER300 program is stimulating the interest in fi tting CCS to gas-fi red units and 

industrial facilities. 

• The ‘CCS Directive’, which mainly regulates the storage of CO 2, had not been fully transposed 

in any member state as at December 2010. Without this directive, no new storage permits can 

be applied for. The delay in the transposition has caused some delays for CCS demonstration 

projects because investment decisions cannot be made as long as legal uncertainty around 

CO 2 storage exists. 

• The United Kingdom and the Netherlands have the largest number of LSIPs in Europe. 

Projects in these countries have benefi ted or will be seeking to benefi t from public funds to 

encourage project development. A number of projects in these countries are expected to be 

in a position to apply for both NER300 calls and possibly national funding. Both countries also 

have access to potential offshore storage sites in the North Sea and also the possibilities of 

creating a number of hubs or clusters of major emitters. 

– The United Kingdom in particular is making public funds available to support CCS projects. 

As a result, there has been considerable activity around project development. The Longannet 

and Kingsnorth projects have been the main beneficiaries to date, and the Peterhead project 

has again been brought forward. Against this, and as noted earlier, the economic situation is 

exerting a drag on development, with the Kingsnorth project again being postponed because 

of the economics of commissioning a new coal-fired power plant. The EEPR-funded project 

in Hatfield faces some difficulties as one of the project’s partners (Powerfuel Plc) went into 

administration. However, if a new investor can be found within the second quarter of 2011, 

the project could continue. 

53



– In the Netherlands, the Barendrecht project has been cancelled. However, the previous 

government had already committed substantial funding to the Rotterdam Afvang en Opslag 

Demonstration (ROAD) project that is also funded by the EEPR. Subject to agreement on a 

storage solution, this project is expected to make a FID in 2011. There is signifi cant ongoing 

development activity in the Netherlands and possibly four projects will be in a position to 

apply for NER300 funding, including an industrial project. 

• Norway remains the most advanced country in storing CO 2 in Europe with Sleipner and 

Snøvhit collectively storing around 1.7Mtpa of CO 2 from their natural gas processing activities. 

In addition, the Mongstad project is now planned to be operational in 2020. 

• The only LSIP in Germany, Vattenfall’s Jänschwalde project that is supported by the EEPR, 

continues its efforts to gain public acceptance around its preferred onshore storage site. 

However, in the absence of a clear regulatory framework for CO 2 storage in Germany, public 

opposition for onshore storage remains strong. 

• During the year 2010, work has continued more or less as planned on the other EEPRfunded 

projects (Belchatow in Poland, Compostilla in Spain and Porte Tolle in Italy) and these 

projects are all expected to apply for additional NER300 funding. Other projects are also being 

developed in Europe, ready for the current or subsequent NER300 call. 

CCS developments in the United States 

The focus of interest in the United States is on the newly identifi ed LSIPs. This can be quite 

clearly traced to a number of drivers, including: 

• the availability of signifi cant government funding; 

• the revenue offered by EOR; and 

• the pursuit by EOR operators of early and relatively inexpensive sources of CO 2 . 

The United States policy framework and funding arrangements specifi cally target industrial 

applications. As a result, many of these newly identifi ed projects in the United States are in 

the industrial sector and associated with petrochemical plants, refi neries, synthetic natural gas 

production, ethanol and methanol plants, methane reformers, pulp mills and cement. In late 

2009, 12 industrial projects received funding from the Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage 

(ICCS) program as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment funding arrangements. 

Many LSIPs that will capture CO 2 from industrial sources have clearly been driven by the fi rst-ofa-kind 

funding support, though EOR continues to be an important commercial driver for projects. 

This is strongly suggested by the location of many of these industrial projects which are in Texas 

and surrounding states. This location allows projects to capitalise on the existing and planned 

EOR opportunities and is where activity in the development of pipelines for EOR is greatest. 

Many of these industrial projects can be characterised as smaller, less expensive sources of 

CO 2 that can come online before power generation capture projects can. This is because CO 2 

separation is often already part of the process and the capture technology is well understood. 

In addition, the smaller scale project has a shorter construction period. Accordingly, many EOR 

operators have sought to form commercial agreements with these sources of CO 2 to support their 

own expansion and development plans for EOR operations. 

54


Cancelled, delayed and progressed projects are mainly power generation projects that have either 

commenced or completed concept design studies (FEED). The Mountaineer and Trailblazer 

projects moved into concept defi nition studies (the Defi ne stage). This work will provide greater 

clarity around the commercial viability of retrofi tting or incorporating CCS into power generation 

projects. The Antelope Valley project, on the other hand, completed its FEED study, but there is 

now a delay, which is due mainly to the high cost of the project. 

An important change in 2010 was the restructuring of the FutureGen project from an IGCC 

project to an oxyfuel combustion retrofi t project, named FutureGen 2.0. It continues to receive 

US$1 billion in United States DoE funding – the largest amount of government support for an 

individual CCS project worldwide. 

Within the United States, there is signifi cant emphasis and support for the development of 

next generation CCS technologies such as advanced CO 2 capture, turbo machinery and 

large-scale testing. Major funding is being made available through the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 

Storage activities under the United States DoE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships are 

moving forward with Phase III activities. In Phase III, the Partnerships are working to implement 

nine large-scale sequestration projects to support the demonstration of long-term, safe storage 

of CO 2 in the major geologic formations throughout the United States and Canada. 

CCS developments in Australia 

Australia has two distinct groups of potential large-scale CCS projects: 

• Petroleum sector projects associated with the extraction and re-injection of reservoir CO 2 in 

conjunction with the development of mainly offshore gas-fields. The Gorgon project is the prime 

example of CO 2 re-injection as part of a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) project. Other proposed 

LNG projects in the same region of north-western Australia are also considering the viability of 

re-injection for the disposal of reservoir CO 2 . Their proponents are oil and gas companies with 

access to in-house storage expertise and in many cases they also have access to petroleum 

tenements suitable for storage. 

• Projects associated with the capture of CO 2 from power stations and industrial facilities 

combined with storage in deep onshore and offshore formations – their proponents are mainly 

power generators and original equipment suppliers. Unlike the petroleum sector, these 

organisations have fewer resources with the expertise required to locate and characterise 

suitable storage sites in a country with no large depleted oil or gas fi elds. Four such projects 

were originally shortlisted for public funding under the Australian Government’s CCS Flagships 

program – the Wandoan and ZeroGen IGCC-CCS projects, and the CarbonNet and Collie CCS 

Hubs, both of which combine a number of sources with a single storage site. Recently, the 

ZeroGen project has been cancelled as a LSIP and is now considered a storage-only initiative. 

In late 2009, the petroleum sector made a major leap forward with the commitment of the 

Gorgon Carbon Dioxide Injection Project, which is an integral component of the Gorgon Liquefied 

Natural Gas (LNG) Project. The Gorgon Project is currently under construction and proposes 

to inject 3.4-4Mtpa of CO 2 into the Dupuy formation, which is more than two kilometres 

underground. The total cost of the overall Gorgon Project is in the order of AU$43 billion, of 

which approximately AU$2 billion (including appraisal and well costs) is projected to be spent 

on the carbon dioxide injection component. 

55



Australia’s development of LNG for export is growing vigorously, and though none of the other 

proposed LNG projects have yet committed to re-injection to manage their CO 2 emissions, those 

with access to suitable adjacent storage reservoirs are assessing it as an alternative to emissions 

offsets. LNG project proponents have limited prospects of public funding to support CCS 

development for their projects. The progression of CCS in this sector will be shaped by projectspecifi 

c costs relative to the costs of alternative responses to emerging government climate 

change policies. 

CCS progress has been more subdued in the power and industry sectors. It is likely that each 

of the Flagships projects faces two or more years of exploration to achieve the ‘bankable’ storage 

required for large-scale project commitment. 

CCS developments in Canada 

Since the Alberta funding announcement in 2008, four large-scale projects are being developed. 

The Enhance Energy EOR project is focused on CO 2 pipeline infrastructure. Shell’s Quest project 

will use its Edmonton oil sands upgrading facility as the source of CO 2 . TransAlta’s Project Pioneer 

is a CCS retrofit to a new supercritical coal-fired power plant currently being put into service. Swan 

Hills is an in situ underground coal gasification project that will use the syngas in a combined cycle 

power plant. All of these projects will use EOR to some extent, and both TransAlta and Quest are 

examining a permanent storage component. 

In 2008, the Government of Canada funded the SaskPower Boundary Dam 3 project in 

Saskatchewan and in 2009, provided funding, through the Clean Energy Fund, to three of the 

Alberta projects (Enhance Energy, Quest and TransAlta). 

Each of the projects above has had important advances over the past year: 

• Enhance Energy is in the process of ordering equipment such as valves and compressors. 

There is a potential delay of a few months to the construction of the North West upgrader, the 

principal source of CO 2 , which is not expected to impact the project signifi cantly as the Agrium 

fertiliser plant will provide the initial volumes of CO 2 . 

• SaskPower Boundary Dam 3 has ordered the turbines and boilers for the power plant. While 

the capture technology has been identifi ed, SaskPower has yet to make a fi nal investment 

decision on the CCS component of the project. 

• TransAlta’s Keephills 3 power plant is beginning operation while FEED studies, pipeline 

design and public consultation are being undertaken for the CCS elements (Project Pioneer). 

Enbridge, a major pipeline company in Canada and the United States, became a partner to 

this project, thereby adding strength to the CO 2 transportation aspect. 

• Shell has begun public engagement activities for the Quest project and has drilled a test well 

into the potential deep saline formation. It also fi led its regulatory applications in late 2010. 

• Swan Hills is proceeding with engineering work and has begun public consultation on its 

project. 

There are two other large-scale projects in development. Spectra Energy’s Fort Nelson project 

is a large natural gas processing plant in north-eastern British Columbia. Bow City Power’s 

project is based on a coal-fi red power plant in south-eastern Alberta. These projects continue 

to proceed in the Evaluate stage of the asset lifecycle. 

56


CCS developments in China 

China’s approach to CCS remains focused on R&D. However, Chinese stakeholders are also 

considering opportunities to deploy LSIPs to demonstrate the technologies at scale. In recent 

years, this has been refl ected by an increasing emergence of proposed LSIPs and higher 

government approval rates for projects to progress. 

A small number of proactive and infl uential state-owned enterprises are responsible for driving 

most of the signifi cant CCS projects in China. The motivation is driven by economic and 

commercial factors as well as social and corporate responsibility. 

Among the power generators, the China Huaneng Group (CHG), China’s largest power 

generation company, is the most proactive in driving CCS. CHG has successfully implemented 

two fully integrated pilot post-combustion capture (PCC) projects in Beijing and Shanghai and 

started the construction of the GreenGen project, China’s fi rst commercial IGCC-CCS project. 

GreenGen is being constructed initially as a 250MW IGCC plant with plans to scale up to a 

400MW IGCC-CCS plant by 2016. CHG also has imminent plans to embark on another LSIP and 

continue to develop and optimise its PCC technology, which CHG suggests is signifi cantly lower in 

cost than other PCC technologies. CHG continues to attract much interest in its technology from 

the global community. 

China’s largest coal producer and leading coal-to-liquids (CTL) and coal-to-oil enterprise – the 

Shenhua Group – is pursuing a CCS project based on a commercial CTL plant in the Ordos, Inner 

Mongolia region. This project is China’s largest integrated CCS project focused on storage in a 

deep saline formation. It expects to capture and store over 1Mtpa of CO 2 once completed. While 

the source of CO 2 is virtually ready for compression and transport, the storage of CO 2 continues to 

present considerable challenges. 

CO 2 utilisation continues to be of significant interest for CCS developers in China and is considered 

important to the commercial viability of CCS. There is currently no large source of public funding 

for large-scale demonstration projects in China, which is a key barrier. 

CCS developments in the Middle East and North Africa 

The Middle East and North African (MENA) region is a promising area for CCS deployment as 

there are many emerging project opportunities. Project proponents are now looking to realise 

the twin economic benefi ts of EOR coupled with low-cost CO 2 sources, which can provide a 

signifi cant fi nancial boost to projects. There are signifi cant competitive advantages for the MENA 

region to garner from its well-characterised oil fi elds, which have both ample storage capacities 

and EOR potential. The region also has one of the fastest growing demands for power – it is 

estimated that 60,000MW of new capacity will be required by 2015 (CCS TLM 2010). 

The In Salah gas facility in Algeria is one of the earliest commercial-scale CCS plants in the 

world, and has sequestered 1Mtpa of CO 2 since it was established in 2004. The United Arab 

Emirates is also heavily involved in developments in industrial CCS projects, with the Masdar 

projects spanning power generation, hydrogen generation (the HPAD project) and aluminium 

and steel industries. 

57



Some emerging projects are yet to be fully characterised, but even more mature projects like 

the Masdar projects continue to evolve. The project proponent has recently indicated that the 

different industrial components of the project are moving down separate development path 

timeframes. As a result, in the future, the project should be considered as two projects – 

a power/aluminium project and a steel project. 

LSIPs by region 

The 77 active or planned LSIPs are shown in maps in Figures 23-25, which also identify their 

industry sector and storage types. In these figures, the projects are identified by a reference 

number that corresponds to the detailed project listing in Table C-2 in Appendix C. Figure 26 

displays the LSIPs by region and the stage in the asset lifecycle. 

North America and Europe contain most of the active or planned LSIPs. Specifically, the United 

States and Europe account for 31 and 21 projects respectively, or 68 per cent of all LSIPs, followed 

by Canada (eight projects), Australia (six projects) and China (five projects). There are currently 

no LSIPs identified in key emitter countries such as Japan, India and Russia. 

58


Figure 23 LSIPs by industry sector, storage type and location 

LSIPs: Global 

Industry sector 



Multiple capture facilities 

Other industry 

Storage type 

EOR (Enhanced oil recovery) 




Various/not specifi ed 

59



Figure 24 LSIPs in North America by industry sector and storage type 

LSIPs: North America 




Synthetic natural gas 


Oil refi ning 



Ethanol plant 


Various 

Storage type 






60


Figure 25 LSIPs in Europe by industry sector and storage type 

LSIPs: Europe 






Various 

Storage type 





61



Figure 26 LSIPs by region or country by asset lifecycle stage 


Identify 

Evaluate 

Define 

Execute 

Operate 

USA 

Europe 

Canada 


China 



The amount of CO 2 that is intended to be stored in a given year through the 77 LSIPs provides 

another metric against which to measure the level of potential activity across location, technology 

and storage effort. 

The United States is the most active with regard to both project numbers and the amount of CO 2 

captured (Figure 27), storing an average of 2.1Mtpa per project. Only the United Kingdom with 

an average project size of 3.8Mtpa has larger projects in development on average. The United 

States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, China and the Netherlands combined account for 

around 85 per cent of CCS activity on the basis of potentially stored CO 2 per annum. 

Figure 27 LSIPs: amount of potentially stored CO 2 per annum by region 

CO 2 stored (Mtpa) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

United States 


Australia 

Canada 

China 

Netherlands 

United Arab Emirates 

Poland 

Republic of Korea 

Norway 

Germany 

Spain 

Romania 

New Zealand 

Italy 

France 

Algeria 

In development 

Construction 

Operation 

62


LSIPs by industry sector 

Of the 77 LSIPs in total, 42 are in the power generation sector. Most of those are planned 

for coal-fi red applications (Figure 28) and are in various stages of development planning. 

An important exception is the Southern Company IGCC Project, which is in the Execute stage. 

As noted previously, the high number of power projects is partly a result of the considerable 

government funding announced for projects in this sector. 

During the coming years, the ability to progress a suite of these projects beyond the FID gateway 

will be a key test for all LSIPs. 

Figure 28 LSIPs: Potentially stored CO 2 per annum by industry sector 

CO 2 stored (Mtpa) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 

Power generation 42 


11 


5 


3 


3 

Oil refining 

2 

Ethanol plant 

1 


1 


1 


1 


1 

Various 

6 


Construction 

Operation 


Gas processing projects make up the second largest share of LSIPs (11 projects), of which 

eight are active (of a total of 12 active projects). This is to be expected as the additional costs for 

CCS for gas processing relate to compression, transport, storage and liability as the CO 2 must be 

separated from the gas stream before transporting to market. As identifi ed in Chapter 7 on costs, 

this can account for up to fi ve per cent of the value of the natural gas sold depending on the 

nature of the project. The most recent example of an LSIP in this sector that has progressed 

in stage is the Gorgon Carbon Dioxide Injection Project, which is now in Execute. 

The remaining LSIPs are spread over a range of different industries. Despite being major 

contributors to global CO 2 emissions, there are few LSIPs in the cement, iron and steel and paper 

and pulp products industries (listed in Table 5). As previously mentioned, the Masdar project is 

a network that includes a steel component. This apparent lack of representation is the result of 

a combination of factors, including higher government funding allocations to power generation 

and that some of these industries (iron and steel for example) may require the development of 

breakthrough technologies (Birat 2009). 

There are also a number of LSIPs that fi t into the ‘Various’ category. This includes projects that 

aim to capture CO 2 from hub or network projects that expect to capture CO 2 from a range of 

industries. 

63



Table 5 LSIPs in cement, iron and steel, and pulp and paper industries 

NAME ASSET LIFECYCLE DESCRIPTION INDUSTRY COUNTRY 

CEMEX CO 2 

Capture Plant 

Evaluate 

1Mtpa of CO 2 to be 

captured using dry 

sorbent capture 

technology 

ULCOS Florange Define 0.5Mtpa of CO 2 to 

be captured using 

a prototype blast 

furnace 

Boise White 

Paper Mill 

Evaluate 

LSIPs by capture type 

0.72Mtpa of CO 2 to 

be captured from the 

combustion of black 

liquor 

Cement 

Iron and Steel 

Pulp and Paper 

United States 

France 

United States 

Pre-combustion and post-combustion capture systems dominate the LSIPs, with 33 projects 

(43 per cent) and 21 projects (27 per cent) respectively (Figure 29). 

Figure 29 LSIPs by capture type 








Construction 

Operation 

Around 80 per cent of the projects based on post-combustion capture and 60 per cent of the 

pre-combustion capture projects are in the power generation industry. For the 33 pre-combustion 

capture LSIPs, the fl exibility of the technology is shown through the spread of projects across 

power generation (19), synthetic natural gas (fi ve), coal-to-liquids (three), fertiliser production 

(three), oil refi ning (two) and hydrogen production (one). 

The majority (over 70 per cent) of LSIPs based on pre-combustion capture are being developed 

for new build facilities. In contrast, for post-combustion capture projects, around 60 per cent 

are retrofi tting post-combustion capture to existing facilities, enabling CO 2 emissions that are 

considered ‘locked in’ in operational facilities to be abated. 

The other major capture technology includes the 12 LSIPs capturing CO 2 as part of gas processing, 

which is at the most mature stage of technology implementation since CO 2 separation from 

produced gas using amine-based absorbents is standard industry practice. 

64


Oxyfuel combustion is being planned or considered by four projects, all of which are in the 

power generation industry. This includes the recently restructured FutureGen 2.0 project in 

the United States. 

The amount of CO 2 to be potentially stored by projects in the planning and Execute stages 

provides another perspective into capture technologies that are currently being pursued 

(Figure 30). Capture technologies utilising pre-combustion capture, including both power and 

non-power applications, accounts for around 70 per cent of the potential CO 2 stored per annum 

for the LSIPs. Post-combustion capture, which largely applies to the power industry, accounts for 

23 per cent of the annual potential CO 2 stored for the LSIPs. This dominance of pre-combustion 

technologies is refl ective of the greater government funding that has been allocated to these 

types of projects. 

Figure 30 LSIPs in planning and Execute stages: potentially stored CO 2 per annum by capture type 15 

CO 2 stored (Mtpa) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 

Power 


Gasification 




Various 

LSIPs by transport type 

Almost all LSIPs (around 90 per cent) involve transporting or planning to transport CO 2 via 

pipelines. CO 2 pipelines are a proven technology, with around 5,900 kilometres of CO 2 pipelines 

operating in North America alone for EOR. Forty-seven of the 70 projects utilising pipeline 

transportation specifi ed the length of pipeline intended to be used (Figure 31). While there are 

many projects within a 100 kilometre radius of their potential storage site, there are enough 

projects outside that distance range to suggest that transportation costs are not a serious barrier 

to CCS deployment. There are very few shipping options indicated (three projects). The potential 

for ship or shuttle transportation offers opportunities to lessen the CO 2 source–sink constraint that 

may hinder capture developments in areas where easily accessible storage options are limited. 

15 

Gasifi cation category includes synthetic natural gas, coal-to-liquids and fertiliser production 

65



Figure 31 LSIPs with pipelines for transport by known pipeline length 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 

Distance range (km) 

0-50 

50-100 

100-150 

150-200 

200-250 

250-300 

300-350 

350-400 

400+ 

Offshore storage 

Onshore storage 

LSIPs by storage type 

Almost half of the 77 LSIPs are based on ‘direct geological storage’ utilising deep saline 

formations (26 projects), depleted oil and gas reservoirs (eight projects) and deep basalt 

formations (one project) (see Figure 32). Currently, 32 projects are based on potential storage 

in conjunction with EOR, and the remainder use a combination of storage options or are yet 

to decide on their storage component (10 projects). 

Figure 32 LSIPs by storage type 


EOR 






Construction 

Operation 

Although ‘direct geological storage’ represents the largest number of projects, EOR has played 

an early role in the development of CCS projects being used in eight of the 12 projects in the 

Execute and Operate stages (Figure 33). 

66


Figure 33 LSIPs by storage type and asset lifecycle stage 


Operate 

Execute 

Define 

Evaluate 

Identify 

EOR 





CO 2 -EOR is a complex issue. The economic outcome and increased domestic oil production 

associated with EOR has and is likely to facilitate the demonstration of CCS projects during the 

next fi ve to 10 years, especially in North America where it accounts for the bulk of CO 2 to be 

injected (Figure 34). 

Figure 34 LSIPs: potentially stored CO 2 per annum by country and storage type 

CO 2 stored (Mtpa) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

United States 


Australia 

Canada 

China 

Netherlands 

United Arab Emirates 

Poland 


Norway 

Germany 

Spain 

Romania 

New Zealand 

Algeria 

Italy 

France 

EOR 





67



EOR projects provide revenue from CO 2 -enhanced oil production. 16 In most cases, a significant 

portion of the CO 2 initially injected is ultimately recovered for reuse (recycling) and a portion of 

the total injected CO 2 eventually is stored permanently, when it is trapped as a residual fluid in the 

pore space. Once the oil recovery process is complete, many of these projects may be available for 

conversion to dedicated storage, subject to regulatory arrangements being set in place. 

From an integrated project perspective, EOR can help to reduce the time, cost and uncertainty 

while developing the capture component of the project. With available transport and storage 

infrastructure in place, a project can focus on the capture and compression of CO 2 for its facility. 

Once the capture component is defi ned and constructed, the existing EOR infrastructure can 

be accessed. This reduces the cost, time and uncertainty of exploring for a suitable storage site. 

It also allows a faster pathway to subsurface characterisation by drawing upon the existing data 

and experience of the oil fi eld and it diminishes the extent of transport and storage approvals 

required through amending existing permits if necessary. 

In addition to enabling and accelerating the development of large-scale capture systems (and the 

associated project management practices), EOR also has the potential to provide a knowledge base 

to build upon for the broader demonstration of projects, including: 

• appraisal of an injection confi nement zone and surrounding strata including the evaluation of 

‘leakage’ risks; 

• collection and analysis of chemical, geological and hydrology information related to the target 

and surrounding formations; 

• demonstration of well bore integrity; and 

• the safe handling of CO 2 . 

Importantly, the numerous EOR projects provide ‘practical experience’ for understanding the 

movement and behaviour of CO 2 in the subsurface, enabling testing of MMV techniques. 

The challenge for CO 2 -based EOR projects – in the context of the process being a signifi cant step 

towards large-scale deployment of CCS as a mechanism for addressing climate change concerns 

– is the level of uptake of adequate MMV systems and approaches to confi rm that CO 2 can be 

stored safely and permanently. To provide this assurance, it is likely that many EOR projects 

would need to undertake further site characterisation, risk assessment, and monitoring and 

reporting on top of standard EOR activities. 

In most countries, viable EOR opportunities are limited, at least for the time being. In countries 

such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Netherlands, for example, ‘direct geological 

storage’ options are being developed by most project proponents. In the near to medium term, 

EOR projects can act as a stepping stone in supporting the development of technologies, operating 

efficiencies and project management practices. This is consistent with large-scale commercial 

deployment of CCS. In the longer run, however, the geological data suggests that it is only through 

‘direct geological storage’ options that CCS can be deployed more widely in the volumes that will 

lead to a significant abatement of atmospheric CO 2 . 

68 

16 

In the United States the market price for CO 2 is estimated at around US$20-40 per tonne and this potential revenue appears to be a 

signifi cant project enabler (Moore 2010) though government support of various types is also required.


There are alternative views emerging that see opportunities for growth in CO 2 storage through 

new EOR applications and techniques. Future projects may also be able to exploit areas that have 

never produced oil conventionally but have residual oil from a ‘palaeo-accumulation’, where the 

bulk of oil or gas has been remobilised to an existing field by geological movement. These residual 

oil zones may yield substantial oil and provide a commercial driver for CO 2 injection (ARI and 

Melzer Consulting 2010). Using larger volumes of CO 2 in place of water injection may accelerate 

CO 2 storage while improving oil recovery. 

In North America, onshore CO 2 storage projects are being pursued almost exclusively. Most offshore 

CO 2 storage projects are being pursued in Europe (such as in Norway, the United Kingdom and the 

Netherlands). This difference is most likely due to the availability of large amounts of geological data 

in the North Sea and the ability to use existing oil and gas infrastructure and experience to support 

CO 2 storage. It also allows European proponents to store CO 2 away from populated areas. Australian 

projects are considering both onshore and near shore storage options. 

Portfolio distribution of LSIPs 

A portfolio distribution mapping the key industries, technologies, and regions where current 

LSIPs are being considered is a useful mechanism to summarise graphically much of the previous 

discussion in this chapter (Table 6). Many of the salient points have been made previously, including 

the geographical dominance of a few key regions, the dominance of power generation projects and 

pipeline systems within these regions, and a geographical disparity in storage solutions. 

69



Table 6 LSIPs by region, by technology and by industry 

GEOGRAPHIES 

NORTH 

AMERICA 

EUROPE 

CHINA 

AUSTRALIA 

OTHER ASIA 

Industry and Capture 

Other Power 

Transport 

Pipeline 

MIDDLE 

EAST 

AFRICA 

Storage 

TOTAL 

Key: 

Power, pre-combustion 9 5 2 1 1 18 

Power, post-combustion 6 9 1 1 17 

Power, oxyfuel 2 2 4 

Power, other or to be determined 1 1 1 3 

Iron & steel 1 1 2 

Cement 1 1 

Other industries 21 4 2 4 1 1 33 

Pipeline point-to-point onshore 12 7 2 3 1 25 

Pipeline point-to-point offshore 1 5 2 8 

Pipeline point-to-point, not specified 

on/offshore 

1 1 

Pipeline network 18 4 3 2 27 

Pipeline, not specified as 

point-to-point or network 

7 1 8 

Ship 1 2 3 

Cross border CO 2 transport 1 1 2 

Combination/not specified 1 2 1 4 

Deep saline formations 6 11 2 4 2 1 26 

Depleted oil and gas reservoirs 6 1 1 8 

Other geological storage or detail to 

be determined 

1 2 1 4 

Gas field for enhanced gas recovery (EGR) 0 

Oil field for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) 28 1 1 2 32 

Other, combination or to be determined 4 1 1 1 7 

No projects 1 - 2 projects 3 - 10 projects > 10 projects 

Modified from L.E.K 2009 

70


Analysis of LSIPs against G8 criteria 

In 2008, the Group of Eight (G8) leaders announced in Hokkaido: 

“We strongly support the launching of 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects globally 

by 2010, taking into account various national circumstances, with a view to beginning broad 

deployment of CCS by 2020.” (G8 Summit 2008) 

In order to track progress against the goal of launching 20 projects by 2010, the International 

Energy Agency developed a set of criteria in collaboration with the Carbon Sequestration 

Leadership Forum (CSLF) and Global CCS Institute (Table 7). While there is ongoing discussion 

about the defi nition of ‘launching’ a project and hence the suitability of these criteria, the results 

of their application are shown below. 

Table 7 G8 criteria 

1 Scale is large enough to demonstrate the technical and operational viability of future commercial CCS systems. 

• A coal-fired power project should capture in the order of 1Mtpa of CO 2. 

• A natural gas-fired power plant, an industrial or natural gas processing installation should capture in the 

order of 500,000 tonnes per annum of CO 2. 

2 Projects include full integration of CO 2 capture, transport (where required) and storage. 

3 Projects are scheduled to begin full-scale operation before 2020, with a goal of beginning operation by 2015 

when possible. 

4 Location of the storage site is clearly identified. 

• Primary site is identified with site characterisation underway. 

• Preferred CO 2 transport routes, linking the capture site and the storage site, have been identified. 

5 A monitoring, measurement and verification (MMV) plan is provided. 

• This plan provides a high level of confidence that sequestered CO 2 is stored securely. 

6 Appropriate strategies are in place to engage the public and to incorporate their input into the project. 

7 Project implementation and funding plans demonstrate established public and/or private sector support. 

• Major milestones are identified and adequate funding is in place to advance the project to operation. 

The Institute, in collaboration with the IEA and the CSLF, developed a traffi c light system for 

assessing LSIPs against each of the G8 criteria (Table C-2 in Appendix C). The broad defi nitions 

of the traffi c light system are shown in Table 8. Table C-4 in Appendix C provides a more detailed 

defi nition of the traffi c light classifi cation. 

71



Table 8 Broad definitions of traffic light 

TRAFFIC LIGHTS BROAD DEFINITION 

Green 

Amber 

Red 

Indicates that the project was progressing well in meeting a particular G8 criterion 

Indicates that the project was making some progress against a particular G8 criterion 

Indicates that the project was making very little progress, if any, or sufficient information was 

not provided to make an assessment against a particular G8 criterion 

Figures 35 and 36 provide a summary of the traffi c light classifi cation for 76 of the LSIPs 17 

against the G8 criteria. The key observations include: 

• Most LSIPs, by defi nition, generally meet the fi rst three criteria. 

• For Criterion 4, ‘Transport and storage’, careful analysis is required. This is not surprising 

because many projects are in the development planning stages and the ability and necessity 

to adequately characterise a storage site is dependent on a range of factors. Around one 

third of the LSIPs appear to have adequately defi ned their storage site and transport routes. 

The remaining two thirds, in general, have identifi ed possible storage and transport routes, 

but the level of defi nition of these is limited and detailed work is required to progress. 

The data suggests that fewer than half of the projects in the Defi ne stage have started the 

necessary detailed characterisation work, such as seismic investigations, injection testing, 

reservoir modelling, risk assessment, and determining the MMV regime to be implemented, 

which would normally be expected to form part of a successful FID. These activities can take 

several years once a prospective site is identifi ed and can even lead to a site being proven 

unsuitable. The high level of uncertainty and risk associated with storage selection and its 

co-dependency with other elements of the CCS chain indicate that early action on this front 

is required in developing an integrated project. 

• For Criterion 5, ‘MMV’, the issues are similar to those discussed in Criterion 4, Transport 

and Storage. The level of planning and implementation of suitable MMV regimes across 

most projects appears low and again this is perhaps not surprising given the planning status 

of many projects. However, the very low number of LSIPs considered as having a green 

traffi c light (14 projects) relative to the number of LSIPs in the Defi ne, Execute and Operate 

stages (39 projects) highlights this as an area that needs to be addressed to support the 

demonstration of projects. 

• For Criterion 6, ‘Public engagement’, most projects have a green or amber classifi cation, 

which indicates that they have or intend to put in place strategies and plans to engage with the 

public at the appropriate time. This result is also not surprising because most countries require 

this as part of the approval process for any large infrastructure project. Project proponents are 

becoming much more aware of the need to anticipate, mitigate and manage non-technical 

risks systematically through the project development cycle. Importantly, as presently framed, 

this criterion does not measure the quality and effectiveness of these public engagement plans 

and strategies and how well these are individually tailored to gain the trust and approval 

of local communities to build CCS projects. 

72 

17 

The South Heart IGCC project was newly identified in late 2010 and suffi cient information was not provided to undertake a traffi c light 

assessment.


• For Criterion 7, ‘Funding’, the inference made is that most projects have adequate funding 

to complete their current stage of development but they do not necessarily have the support 

required to carry the entire project through to operation. 

Figure 35 Summary of LSIPs against traffic light system by each G8 criterion 

Number of projects 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

1. Scale 

2. Integration 

3. Schedule 

4. Transport and storage 

5. MMV 

6. Engage public 

7. Funding 

Green 

Amber 

Red 

Figure 36 The number of G8 criteria met by the LSIPs by asset lifecycle 


0 5 10 15 20 25 

Number of G8 criteria met 

One 

Two 

Three 

Four 

Five 

Six 

Seven 

Identify 

Evaluate 

Define 

Execute 

Operate 

73


4 CO 

2 STORAGE 

National and regional storage screenings 

have progressed in most major emitting 

countries. Developing specific injection 

sites can take 5-10 years – a key factor 

in determining progress for projects. 

74

4 CO2 STORAGE 

10 initiatives 

to undertake high-level regional 

storage assessments have been 

progressed since 2008 in North 

America, Europe, India, Australia, 

China, South Africa and Brazil. 

5 - 10 years 

and at least tens of millions of 

dollars are required to fully assess 

and characterise a ‘greenfield’ 

storage site. 

Early assessment 

of the opportunities and risks of 

a potential storage site is important 

in managing an integrated CCS 

project’s overall risks and timing. 

KEY MESSAGES 

• Joint work by the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG) R&D Programme, 

Geogreen and the Global CCS Institute, scheduled for completion in early to mid-2011, will identify 

gaps in storage effort required to meet the objectives of the G8 and IEA for the commercial-scale 

demonstration of CCS. 

• Australia, Canada, China, India, much of Europe and the United States have made significant 

advances in national and regional high-level storage assessments during the past two years. 

There are still many priority regions requiring additional regional geological screening as a first 

step in assessing national storage potential, prior to the more intensive localised effort required 

to assess sites for project development. 

• The cost of moving from a desktop screening assessment to a fully assessed site that is ready 

for development is high. It ranges from tens of millions of dollars for onshore sites to hundreds 

of millions for offshore sites, and even more for ‘greenfields’ saline reservoirs where few data are 

available. 

• Further research and large-scale demonstrations are needed to develop most storage types and 

improve methods and technologies for managing related risks. A major near-term effort is required 

to support the development of demonstration projects by 2020. 

• Although saline formations are considered to have the greatest potential capacity for CO 2 storage, 

only a handful of projects around the world have undertaken activities to estimate CO 2 storage 

‘reserves’ for deep saline formations. This reflects the relative lack of existing data and experience 

in saline formations when compared with that in depleted oil and gas fields. 

• Internationally accepted and financially accredited methodologies for estimating storage capacity 

and CO 2 storage resources and ‘reserves’ will be needed to facilitate analysis and comparison of 

opportunities for widespread deployment of CCS. 

• Transition from CO 2 injection for enhanced oil recovery (which is dominant in North America) to 

permanent, dedicated storage of CO 2 is likely to require additional infrastructure and monitoring 

oversight, 

• Given the long (5-10 year) lead-times and the effort required to progress from screening to final 

storage site characterisation to be consistent with the requirements of a Final Investment Decision, 

the necessary data gathering, progressive capacity assessments, exploration, appraisal and injection 

testing, and other steps should already be underway in all countries where deployment of CCS is 

expected to start in the next 10 years. 

• There is a need for appropriately phased integration of project elements and recognition of their 

co-dependencies. Some projects have focused on the capture technology without undertaking 

adequate storage assessment. Some have not addressed the risks and unknowns about the storage 

sink early enough in the planning process, which leads to inefficiencies in project timing and greater 

project risks. 

75


4 CO 2 STORAGE (CONTINUED) 


This chapter will report on the status of efforts to better understand and assess, primarily at a 

national level, the most viable locations with adequate capacity to permanently store injected 

CO 2 in geological formations. Specifi cally, this chapter will: 

• report on and analyse the progress of national assessments for CO 2 storage; 

• review the development of methodologies for estimating storage capacity; 

• review issues concerning the scale, costs and risks associated with storage; and 

• review the status of different storage types being considered (such as depleted oil and gas 

reservoirs, deep saline formations, unmineable coal seams, basalt formations) and issues 

regarding subsurface impacts and the behaviour of injected CO 2 . 

4.2 Recent progress in storage 

Global assessments 

The IPCC in its 2005 CCS Special Report made high-level, global CO 2 storage capacity estimates 

ranging from 1,700-11,000Gt of CO 2 for a variety of storage types, with deep saline formation 

storage making up the vast majority (Metz et al. 2005). The IPCC concluded that there was 

suffi cient capacity at a global level to meet the goal of storing a total of 145Gt of CO 2 from 

emissions by 2050. 

In 2009, the IEA reconfi rmed the target of 145Gt of CO 2 when it presented its Technology 

Roadmap for CCS. It proposed a deployment growth in which 100 projects would store more than 

100 million tonnes per year by 2020 and more than 3,000 projects would store around 10Gt of 

CO 2 per year by 2050 (IEA 2009). The Technology Roadmap did not attempt to match projected 

emission rates to storage requirements. 

Figure 37 provides an interim update of the international IPCC 2005 assessment of global 

geological potential ‘suitability’ for storage prepared for the Global CCS Institute by the IEAGHG 

R&D Programme and Geogreen as part of a larger gap analysis study due in early 2011. It uses a 

modified ‘traffic-light’ style of colour coding of prospectivity, which is based on the broad geological 

characteristics of the regions, including the presence of potential storage and sealing sediments. 

This is a guide to the regions where storage exploration is most likely to be successful. 

76

4 CO2 STORAGE 

Figure 37 World geological storage suitability 

World geological storage suitability 

Highly suitable, sedimentary basin or continental margin 

Suitable, sedimentary basin or continental margin 

Possible, sedimentary basin or continental margin 

No data 

Unsuitable, deep water 

Unsuitable, igneous rock 

Unproven 

Main faults 

Source: IEAGHG R&D Programme, Geogreen and Global CCS Institute (2011) 

77



The areas marked in green are considered highly suitable or suitable for further screening and 

exploration, whereas the yellow regions may be suitable. The white areas are regions that are 

predominantly igneous or metamorphic rocks (including granites, basalt, and metamorphosed 

rocks), which are largely unsuitable for storage. The grey areas represent those regions where no 

data are available (primarily due to ice cover). Blue areas designate offshore regions where the 

water depth is too great for economic storage, and brown areas are unproven with evidence of 

volcanic rocks. 

Regional assessments 

In recent years, more detailed regional assessments have been undertaken. 

Regional studies provide estimates that generally fall into the ‘screening’ or a theoretical resource 

estimate (as defi ned in Figure 39). Larger-scale assessments at the national and regional level 

or the basin or continental level cover a much larger area and rely on high-level data sets and 

analyses that provide an overview. However, they have much higher uncertainty than estimates 

associated with CO 2 storage resources that have used more detailed data sets. As a result, the 

high level assessments tend to overestimate the potential capacity. Despite this uncertainty, 

these higher-level storage viability and capacity estimates are important as they identify whether 

a region has the potential for signifi cant storage and point to where more local and site-specifi c 

exploration and assessments should be undertaken. 

Desktop studies of this type are relatively low-cost (usually much less than US$10 million). 

To select a site for injection, the screening study is normally followed by a more costly workfl ow 

of exploration and testing that matures the understanding of one or more storage resources to 

an estimate of ‘practical storage capacity’. This term is roughly analogous to the defi nition of 

petroleum reserve by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE et al. 2007). As with petroleum 

reserves, the capacity estimates for a given project will change repeatedly for years after initial 

injection, as the ‘performance’ of the storage reservoir in the injection phase is better understood. 

Figure 38 illustrates a ‘state of play’ of regional assessments for saline aquifer CO 2 storage. 

(Table C-5 in Appendix C provides a more complete summary of recent studies). The levels of 

assessment are defi ned below. 

78

4 CO2 STORAGE 

Figure 38 Status of country-scale screening assessments 


Status of screening assessments 

Capacity 

Characterised 

Under development 

Theoretical 

Source: IEAGHG R&D Programme, Geogreen and Global CCS Institute (2011) 

79



The following are high-level regional assessments that have progressed in the past two years: 

• The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United 

States and Canada (NETL 2010), which provides estimates of storage resource capacity 

at state (United States) and provincial (Canada) scale. This work is in its third edition and 

represents the most mature of the national assessments; 

• In 2008, European Union Geocapacity (2008) completed its three-year project, which involved 

various levels of storage assessments of 21 European countries, as well as a suite of economic, 

emission, and infrastructure work program reports; 

• In 2008, IEAGHG completed a regional assessment of the potential for CO 2 storage in the 

fi ve nations within the Indian subcontinent, which pointed to signifi cant potential storage, 

particularly in parts of the Indian near shore areas; 

• In September 2009, the Australian Carbon Storage Taskforce (2009) released its summary 

report, concluding that there are at least 70 years of storage capacity potentially available for 

stationary emissions from eastern Australia; 

• In December 2009, the United States DoE published its fi ve-year joint Chinese-American study 

(Dahowski et al. 2009) that surveyed all of China at a high level and indicated substantial 

saline resources (about 3,000Gt) and other storage options; 

• An internal Chinese national screening study by the Chinese Geological Survey is scheduled 

for completion in 2012 (MOST 2010); 

• The United States Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (2010), commissioned 

by President Barack Obama, released its report in August 2010. This comprehensive report 

includes a recent update of storage resource assessment in the top 10 coal combustion emitting 

countries; and 

• A CO 2 Storage Atlas of South Africa was released in September 2010. The report indicates 

that most of the potential for storage lies in offshore sediments of the Western Cape and 

Orange Basin regions. 

Work is also in progress on CO 2 storage atlases for Brazil and Mexico. Other English-language, 

country-level studies are less recent or not available at the time of writing. Of the top 10 stationary 

coal combustion emitters, there is less available recent whole-of-nation information concerning 

Japan, Russia, and South Korea. 

The desktop studies represent signifi cant progress, recognising a need for understanding the 

national and regional potential for storage, but can represent only an early step in progressing 

to developing storage assets. 

Classification system 

Considerable work is in progress to develop and build consensus on an international 

classifi cation system for estimates of geological storage capacity for CO 2 involving the Carbon 

Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the United States Department of Energy and the 

Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) that consider factors 

such as the scale of the assessment and technical, economic and regulatory factors. 

More recently, the IEAGHG R&D Programme and the United States DoE proposed a new 

classifi cation system as illustrated in Figure 39. 

80

4 CO2 STORAGE 

Figure 39 IEAGHG R&D Programme proposed classification system for evaluating CO 2 storage 

resource/capacity estimates 

Practical Storage Capacity 

Theoretical Storage Resource 

Characterised Storage Resource 

Effective Storage Resource 

Proved Probable Possible 

Contingent Storage Resource 

Unusable Storage Resource 

Uncharacterised Storage Resource 

Source: Gorecki et al. (2009) 

The proposed classifi cation scheme differentiates between: 

• theoretical storage resources accounting for the total pore space within the area of assessment; 

• characterised storage resource with further assessment work that takes spatial variability and 

geological heterogeneity into account; 

• effective storage resource takes into account storage capacity that is technically feasible to 

utilise and applies factors that limit storage based on how CO 2 fills the available pore space; and 

• practical storage capacity considers the application of both economic and regulatory 

constraints. Within practical storage capacity, there is also a major distinction made between 

storage capacity that is ‘proved’ (i.e. it has a reasonable certainty of being available, or 

‘bankable’ in terms of providing investors with suffi cient confi dence) and the less certain 

estimates of ‘probable’ or ‘possible’ capacities. 

Analogous to classifi cation schemes in the hydrocarbon sector, proven practical storage 

capacity could be considered as the equivalent of storage ‘reserves’. In their recently released 

Best Practice Guide Version 1.0, the National (United States) Energy Technology Laboratory 

(NETL 2010) presented an alternative scheme based on the SPE (2007) classifi cation. 

Consensus in the international community to endorse and use a consistent scheme will facilitate 

investment decision making as fi nancial institutions and other organisations will have greater 

confi dence in comparing and contrasting storage assessment studies. An agreed scheme will 

support, but not substitute for, the confi dence engendered by successful progress on exploration 

and appraisal leading to demonstration scale development. 

81



Overall, amongst the OECD economies, most have a high-level understanding of their potential 

storage capacity, at least at the level of ‘characterised’ storage resources for deep saline formations. 

At present, however, there is still very little practical storage capacity at the ‘proved’ level required 

to support commercial-scale project investment. 

The United States Geological Survey is acknowledged internationally as an expert in mineral and 

energy commodity resource assessment. They followed-up on previous work in the United States 

with a proposed, geology-based probabilistic methodology for geologic storage capacity estimation 

at the scale of individual sites (Brennan et al. 2010). They are using this approach to revise the 

national estimate of CO 2 storage capacity. This ‘bottom-up’ assessment in which individual sites 

are assessed then summed will provide a conservative but more constrained estimate of storage 

capacity that is likely to correspond to the IEA‘s effective storage resource category. 

4.3 Issues and challenges for CO 2 storage 

82 

Hydrocarbon emissions 

Emissions from hydrocarbon sources are anticipated to rise substantially during the next 30 years, 

particularly from the processing and production of natural gas (including liquefied natural gas- 

LNG). Although hydrocarbons are often associated with coal-producing basins, there are many 

exceptions, including the Middle East, parts of Southwest Asia and the Northwest Shelf of Australia. 

Storage options will require assessment in these regions rich in natural gas. 

Natural gas produced in the future will also have a higher in situ reservoir CO 2 content as deeper 

reservoirs are accessed and more gas is produced near igneous terrains or is deeper and partly 

altered by increased temperatures. 

The Australian Carbon Storage Taskforce (2009) projected signifi cant increases in CO 2 

production associated with the expansion of LNG projects in the Northwest Shelf and Timor Sea. 

Emissions from these sources could account for up to 30 per cent of Australia’s total stationary 

emissions by 2020. 

Indonesia plays a major role in LNG production and some of its fields are high in CO 2 . For example, 

the giant Natuna natural gas field, which remains undeveloped, contains approximately 70 per cent 

CO 2 by composition. Malaysia also has high CO 2 content fields. 

A key public knowledge ‘gap’ for storage thus far is in the Middle East, where LNG production 

is likely to increase in future decades. 

Data availability and analysis 

The rich subsurface data sets associated with oil and gas fields and provinces will provide an initial 

basis for assessing CO 2 storage opportunities in depleted or near-depleted oil and gas formations, 

as well as providing a regional subsurface geological framework for further studies. This legacy data 

will be of less use in analysing other kinds of potential storage, including saline formations. 

Hydrocarbon producing areas have an advantage in their data availability. For EOR projects, 

the advantage is augmented by the detailed knowledge about the reservoir zone, where the CO 2 

will be injected, and the insights about the reservoir’s response to injection given the history of 

hydrocarbon extraction within the producing fi eld. The storage capacity for depleting or depleted 

reservoirs is also better constrained than for other types of storage. In addition, the reduced 

reservoir pressure due to production allows for easier CO 2 injection.

4 CO2 STORAGE 

Regions with a recent history of hydrocarbon or groundwater extraction often have an advantage 

with data already generated to assist in understanding the ability of a region to store CO 2 . Data on 

key parameters – such as pressures, water chemistry, engineering data associated with well and 

facility materials and designs – is required to progress a prospect from theoretical to practical 

capacity, and an understanding of its ‘injectivity’ (or rate and ease of injection). These data are 

often privately held or otherwise diffi cult to access. 

However, highly drilled areas have to consider the numbers and distribution of well penetrations 

of the ‘cap rock’ that provides the seal for CO 2 . In addition, the impact of pressure reduction 

brought about by producing hydrocarbons and its impact on the stresses in the rocks and faults 

may need to be considered. 

For saline formations, where the bulk of global storage potential volume is thought to lie, existing 

geological information may be, even in hydrocarbon or groundwater producing areas, confi ned to 

strata above the deep saltwater bearing formations. The detailed geology and rate at which CO 2 

may be injected may have to be inferred from modelling. Oil and gas exploration wells that have 

failed to discover hydrocarbons can provide a starting point for assessment of potential storage 

and seal. 

Areas where data sets are more complete and accessible at low cost tend to be analysed fi rst, 

irrespective of their storage potential. Jurisdictions with public ownership of the resource prior 

to production (for example, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and nations with production 

sharing contracts) tend to have more accessible and complete data sets as the resource is a 

state asset. 

The Australian Carbon Storage Taskforce (2009) cited a need to retrieve these existing data 

(mainly from the petroleum sector work) in order to accelerate understanding and reduce initial 

exploration and evaluation costs. It recommended that ‘data reporting and regulations need to 

be reviewed in order that CCS regulators are able to consult relevant data’ and develop a ‘deep 

knowledge’ of the basin’s geological framework. 

Regions with little or no hydrocarbon or deep groundwater production may have a paucity of even 

basic geologic data. These areas may require drilling simply to determine if suitable rock types 

are present for storage or containment, leading to a larger, earlier entry cost for assessments. 

Many areas in Australia, for example, require these fundamental data to establish whether or 

not a sink is potentially present and subject to a credible model consistent with existing data. 

With suffi cient data, theoretical or characterised storage resources can be estimated using fairly 

established analytical techniques for high-level national or regional assessments. This includes 

applying storage coeffi cients based on modelling studies for converting theoretical resources into 

characterised resources. Experience from large-scale demonstrations over years of injection will 

be needed to further verify and refi ne coeffi cient values and assessment methods. 

Refi ning these resource estimates from theoretical to practical storage capacity of individual sites 

will require a costly, but necessary, signifi cant additional exploration and assessment effort. 

Storage sink location and selection 

In the initial demonstration phase of CCS development, there is a strong economic driver to 

locate storage locations (or ‘sinks’) close to emission sources. In regions with a paucity of 

adequate storage potential, long-distance transport of CO 2 by ship or pipeline may be feasible 

83



in the long-term when wide-scale deployment of CCS underpins the scale effi ciencies that are 

required to moderate the cost of CO 2 transport over greater distances. 

The drive for cost reduction using nearby areas for storage must be balanced with consideration 

of the storage risks of candidate areas. Cost-benefi t and risk analysis of the trade-offs between 

the storage asset quality, distance of transport and treatment of risk is less mature in CCS when 

compared to option analysis in other more established resource sectors. Well-established and 

tested economic risk-based investment decision methods, adapted from (for example) the oil and 

gas sector should be considered. In some cases, storage site selection and commitment have 

been too strongly based on the proximity to the emission source without adequately considering 

a range of storage options. This can lead to a commitment to a single site or area prematurely. 

This lack of integrated analysis can and has impacted signifi cantly on timelines and economics 

for projects. 

Public entities provide funding to accelerate deployment. In some cases, however, aggressive 

timing targets can lead to taking on higher risks, particularly for storage, if there are a limited 

number of options. 

Industry has strongly asserted that there are two conditions that need to be met from the very 

early stages of an integrated CCS project. First, there must be a ‘portfolio’ of storage ‘prospects’ 

that provide an overall low risk for effective storage. Second, the project needs to have its 

decision and investment points integrated across the project life. 

Care is required in undertaking significant investment in the project-specific capture component 

until there is a high level of confidence that the (supporting) storage capacity is likely to be available. 

The exploration for bankable storage sites to serve large-scale demonstration projects can 

be as costly and risky as oil and gas exploration, especially in regions where there are limited 

opportunities to exploit depleted oil and gas fi elds (and the wealth of prior exploration and 

production data associated with such fi elds). 

For example, in onshore Australia, the experience of ZeroGen highlights the risk of several years 

of exploration (at a cost of approximately AU$90 million) of an initially preferred target area 

before it was determined in 2010 to be uneconomic for large-scale storage (Garnett 2010). 

The key lesson from this experience is the need to fully integrate storage exploration risks into 

project development planning, particularly in the absence of access to depleted oil and gas fi elds 

and their data. This is likely to involve scheduling the exploration needed for storage assurance 

in advance of major CO 2 source and transport assessment expenditure. This may also involve the 

investigation of several storage targets to mitigate the exploration risk. 

There is a strong case for keeping storage options as wide as possible until a number of sites are 

well-characterised and ‘de-risked’ progressively to the point where there is a clear site-specifi c 

understanding of the quality of the storage reservoir, including the pore volume and distribution, 

rock chemistry, pre-injection pore fl uid chemistry, required injection well spacing and quality 

of sealing rock. 

Other geological factors also need to be taken into account. These include earthquake risk as 

well as the lateral and vertical seal effectiveness of the rocks surrounding the storage formation 

(Bachu 2003). Careful consideration also needs to be given to the potential interaction of 

84

4 CO2 STORAGE 

geological CO 2 storage with the production of subsurface resources of fossil fuels, water and 

geothermal resources. 

Non-geological factors, including socio-political considerations, are in many cases also important 

factors in storage site selection and assessment and must be considered at the early stages of 

a project. 

Costs of storage 

Characterising a large-scale demonstration ‘greenfields’ storage site (i.e. where no hydrocarbon 

production has occurred within the potential storage area) to the point of constructing storage 

infrastructure is likely to cost two orders of magnitude more than the initial screening costs 

(i.e. tens of millions or more for onshore and at least $50 million or more for offshore pre-injection 

storage investment). For example, the Gorgon LNG project has spent in excess of AU$150 million 

on site-appraisal activities for its CO 2 injection component within an existing hydrocarbon province 

prior to FID. 

Although each project will be different in detail, in order to progress from the regional scale to 

mature a site to injection-readiness will require additional geophysical acquisition (commonly two 

and three-dimensional refl ection seismic surveys), drilling, well testing, predictive reservoir and 

containment modelling and laboratory analyses with follow-up work during the operation to the 

post-injection phases. 

This level of data and analysis is also needed to meet the requirements of regulators, as well as 

the broader public, and demonstrate that the risks of leakage and other potential impacts on the 

environmental, health and safety, and other subsurface resources can be properly managed. 

The development and operation costs are very sensitive to the quality of the aquifer/reservoir, 

largely due to the number of injection wells required in lower quality reservoirs. 

Figure 40 illustrates schematically, for non-specifi c ‘greenfi elds’ examples, cash outfl ows over 

time, particularly when the site is being drilled/developed for injection. It represents a low 

estimate, as it is based on technical costs, does not include well failures, offi ce or approvals 

costs and assumes minimal maintenance during the early operational phase. It also does 

not include ongoing drilling or pressure relief wells. The time from screening to completion of 

development in preparation for injection is likely between fi ve and 10 years, a timeframe that is 

based on well, seismic and operating costs from the Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture 

and Storage Technologies: 2011 Update (WorleyParsons 2011). The reservoir and plume 

modelling costs were estimated separately. It demonstrates how sensitive costs are to the quality 

of the storage reservoir. 

85



Figure 40 Schematic cash outflow undiscounted – onshore storage only 3Mtpa 

US$m/year 

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 

Yr 10 

60 

50 

Poor reservoir 

Good reservoir 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Yr1 Screening 

Preparation 

Exploration (2D seismic) 

Exploration 

Y5 Exploration (Drilling) 

Exploration (3D seismic) 

Development 

Operate (Dev. onshore) 

Operate 

Operate 

Skills and experience 

The skill sets required for storage assessment and development include subsurface geoscience 

and engineering skills (including resource project management). These skills are already in high 

demand as they are also required in the petroleum sector. Aside from EOR projects and the small 

number of operating or late stage pre-operating projects associated with petroleum production, 

most of the work to date has been by public sector scientists and engineers (found largely in 

international and government geoscience and energy agencies). A small but growing set of private 

sector in-house and consultancy capacity is augmenting the public sector expertise. However, the 

skills involved in translating large-scale projects like Gorgon, In-Salah and Sleipner from concept 

to full-scale operation are in short supply. 

Many of the skills required are transferable between the hydrocarbon and carbon storage sectors. 

Some skills need to be enhanced or adapted and deployed from other sectors to carbon storage 

projects, including predictive physical and chemical modelling of fluids and solid materials in the 

subsurface. Development of workflows and techniques for measuring, monitoring and verification 

is underway. However, as most resource sectors deal with extraction of resources, these processes 

will need to be adapted to large-scale injection and every site will have unique requirements. 

Ensuring that costs are minimised while still achieving risk management objectives will require 

fl exibility on both the proponents and regulators’ parts to optimise techniques for specifi c sites 

(for example, monitoring: Jagger 2010). As confi dence and experience are being built up in a 

new sector, ‘fi t for purpose’ requirements may need to be exceeded, resulting in higher costs 

for early projects. 

86

4 CO2 STORAGE 

As legislation is passed to enable access to storage sites, global skill and experience shortages 

in regulation are likely to persist for some time, particularly in the areas of well integrity and 

measuring, monitoring and verifi cation. Defi ciencies in capacity and capability in this emerging 

sector could lead to ineffi ciencies, delays and possibly reduced effectiveness in regulation, 

unless there are effective training programs both for regulators and proponents. 

Appropriate public engagement for the storage component of CCS will be of paramount 

importance, especially for the early projects, as failure (perceived or real) in environment or 

safety protocols will have wide, possibly global and long-lasting consequences for the sector. 

The United States Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (2010) has also 

identifi ed training both in the public and private sectors as a priority area. 

4.4 Types of storage, their characteristics and current status 

There is a series of questions that must be answered (stated very simply in Table 9) when 

progressing from screening to fi nal decision to inject for any type of geological storage. 

The answers to these questions will not be, for the most part, a simple yes or no; they will be 

qualified. For example, a response to question 3 (containment) might be that the storage asset 

is unlikely to leak at the rate stipulated, as long as a given pressure is not exceeded and this 

can be monitored. 

Table 9 Storage – the key questions that must be addressed for any geo-storage candidate 

STORAGE – KEY QUESTIONS IN PLAIN ENGLISH 

(~ IN SEQUENCE) PHASES 

1. Is it there (is there a receptacle) Screening 

2. Is it deep enough/not too deep 

3. Will it leak (containment) Exploration 

4. How much can we put in Characterisation 

5. How fast (injectivity) 

6. How far will the CO 2 go sooner Later 

7. Could it affect other resources Monitoring 

8. How will we know where it is going Verification 

9. What will we do if it goes somewhere else Mitigation 

Note that question 7 (impact on other resources) may need to be addressed earlier if other 

resources (such as groundwater, hydrocarbons or geothermal) are nearby. The answers to these 

questions will be qualifi ed. 

The types of geological storage currently under consideration with summary comments 

concerning their current project status are described in Table 10. 

Saline formations: The consensus among groups working in CO 2 storage (for example, United 

States Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage 2010) is that saline formations offer 

the greatest potential but need to be demonstrated over a far greater range of geologic settings. 

Currently, all saline storage is associated with hydrocarbon fields or depleted fields where the 

geology and properties of the field area are well known and containment largely established. 

87



Issues that need to be addressed include the response of the saltwater saturated subsurface 

formation to injection. Although concerns raised about the diffi culty of injecting into a deep 

(more than 800 metres) saline formation are argued to be overstated (for example, ZEP in 

response to Ehlig-Economides and Economides 2010), such concerns are best refuted by 

real examples, thus pointing to the need for more demonstration experience in this type of 

reservoir. Pressure management strategies, including relief wells may be required for some 

projects where there are barriers or compartments within the formation. 

Depleted oil and gas reservoirs provide some near term storage, as do existing oil and gas 

projects that benefi t from CO 2 injection. However, any existing casing and cement around well 

bores must be reviewed to ensure that corrosion caused by increased acidity will not lead to a 

breach of current or former well integrity. 

EOR projects currently dominate in North America, largely in response to the driver for more oil 

production. The ultimate potential storage capacity for EOR is considered to be far less than for saline 

aquifers (United States Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage 2010). Transition of 

a site from EOR to dedicated storage may need major revision in management of the reservoir and 

assessment of subsurface infrastructure because CO 2 usage is currently minimised in EOR. 

At present, EOR projects recycle much of the CO 2 that has been initially injected. Unless dedicated 

for permanent storage following the completion of oil recovery, sites will ultimately store a portion of 

the total CO 2 injected (see Dooley et al. 2010 for a more complete discussion on issues impacting 

CO 2 -EOR systems). 

In the future, depending on incentives and availability of CO 2 to projects, higher concentrations 

of CO 2 may lead to higher volumes of both oil recovery and storage (see Chapter 3). 

Other mechanisms of storage (including unmineable coal seams and basalts) may have some 

niche potential but these are largely at the research stage. On a global scale, they are likely to 

remain minor in terms of capacity. 

Table 10 Types of geological storage and current status 

CURRENT 

LARGE-SCALE 

STORAGE TYPE DESCRIPTION/STATUS 

PROJECTS 18 

Depleted oil and 

gas reservoirs 

• Previous characterisation and may have some existing 

infrastructure to support injection activities. 

• Containment established; potential storage capacity exists and 

is relatively well understood through decades of oil and gas 

industry experience; e.g. established mass/balance calculations 

that account for the quantity of hydrocarbons removed. 

• Oil and gas industry has significant experience with injecting 

fluids into these formations. 

• Existing wells have to be managed for leakage risk, with some 

uncertainty over long-term reliability. 

• Small portion of potential pore volume. 

8 – all in the 

planning stages 

18 

Table does not include those projects where the exact storage type has not been specifi ed. 

88

4 CO2 STORAGE 

Table 10 Types of geological storage and current status 

STORAGE TYPE 

Enhanced oil or gas 

recovery with CO 2 

Deep saline 

formations 

Unmineable 

coal seams 

Basalt formations 

DESCRIPTION/STATUS 

• Commercially viable, particularly with significant experience 

and existing networks established in North America for injecting 

CO 2 for EOR. 

• Beneficial use value of the CO 2 can help to recover some of the 

costs associated with large-scale CCS demonstration projects. 

• Estimates in Western Canada put the storage capacity of EOR 

in the order of only 450 million tonnes (ecoEnergy Carbon Capture 

and Storage Task Force 2008). Overall capacity for storage seems 

to be limited. 

• Much more limited potential for EOR in Europe. 

• Opportunities for integrating CO 2 storage and EOR are certainly 

a key driver for CCS demonstration projects in North America. 

• Opportunities for Enhanced Natural Gas Recovery with CO 2 are 

not as developed. 

• Need to understand net CO 2 storage. 

• Demonstrated Sleipner, and more recently Snøvhit associated 

with oil fields (In-Salah gas) and hence, have the presence of 

sealing rocks. 

• Relatively wide global distribution, estimated to have by far the 

greatest storage capacity compared to other types. 

• Injection and behaviour of CO 2 is much less understood due 

to more limited sub-surface experience compared to depleted 

or near-depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs or EOR projects. 

Uncertainty over storage capacity and efficiency, pressure effects 

of injecting CO 2 into formations already saturated, and ensuring 

integrity of the cap rock seal. 

• Risk of impacts on, for example, hydrocarbon or groundwater 

resources (including the potential for brine to flow through cap 

rocks). 

• Lower pH levels that could mobilise heavy metals (e.g. arsenic 

and lead). 

• A larger range of large-scale storage projects in deep saline 

formations is needed. 

• Not currently demonstrated, with little testing at the pilot scale. 

• Coal has a natural affinity for CO 2 relative to methane that is 

naturally found on the surfaces of coal; when CO 2 is injected it 

is absorbed to the coal surface and releases the methane that 

can be captured for economic purposes. 

• Low injectivity of coal and the consequent need for many injection 

wells may restrict potential except where CO 2 injection is used to 

enhance production from an existing coal-bed methane project. 

• Beneficial reuse application – net greenhouse benefit 

• Not currently demonstrated, with little testing at the 

pilot scale. 

CURRENT 

LARGE-SCALE 

PROJECTS 18 

32 most are in 

North America 

(5 operational; 

24 planned; 3 

in construction) 

26 (3 operational; 

22 planned; 1 in 

construction) 

None (TBC) 

1 (planned) 

89



Storage capacity in oil and gas reservoirs is better constrained than in deep saline formations 

that are the focus in the global map (Figure 38). As saline formations are viewed to have greater 

cumulative capacity, the demonstration of large-scale storage in deep saline formations should 

be well represented in the overall portfolio of CCS demonstration projects and needs to be 

progressed to ensure that saline storage is understood well enough for broad deployment. 

In the longer-term, CCS will not be able to rely on the more limited storage opportunities in 

depleted or near-depleted oil and gas formations. Many CO 2 sources also may not have depleted 

oil and gas formations located nearby. 

A substantial and immediate effort will be required to suffi ciently ‘prove-up’ the storage capacity 

needed around the world to support the wide deployment of CCS. The global storage gap 

analysis work that Geogreen have undertaken, for the Institute and IEAGHG, will improve the 

understanding of the scope, cost, time and resources of storage related work needed to meet 

demonstration and deployment objectives for CCS. This study is expected to be completed in 

early 2011. 

90

4 CO2 STORAGE 

91


5 CO 

2 NETWORKS FOR CCS 

Many CCS projects are associated with 

ambitious proposals for new interconnected 

transport networks with development out 

to around 2030, or integrating into existing 

EOR infrastructure in North America. 

92

5 CO2 NETWORKS FOR CCS 

33 

of the 77 large-scale demonstrations 

are associated with the 31 network 

proposals. 

331 million tonnes 

of CO 2 per annum will potentially be 

captured and stored by around 2030 

if all these network proposals proceed 

as planned. 

42 per cent 

of the 77 LSIPs identified in 

Chapter 3, 32 LSIPs (or 42 per 

cent) are associated with the CO 2 

network proposals identified in 

this chapter. 

KEY MESSAGES 

• Extensive pipeline networks already exist for transporting CO 2 . Most are in North America and are 

used to supply CO 2 for EOR, with more than 5,900 kilometres of operating pipeline infrastructure. 

• An integrated CO 2 ‘network’ approach for CCS is defi ned as a system with shared or 

interconnected infrastructure for transporting CO 2 from multiple capture sources to one or more 

underground injection sites. It could also be integrated with providing CO 2 to other ‘end-users’, 

for example to greenhouses in the agricultural sector. 

• While there are additional risks, higher initial investment levels, and interoperability issues 

associated with a network approach, the economies of scale and other benefi ts compared to a 

standalone single source CCS development can provide economic advantages and are infl uencing 

the development of several proposed CCS projects. 

• Thirty-one different CCS related CO 2 network proposals have been identifi ed, split between 

14 ‘overarching’ proposals to establish a new CO 2 network (which often encompass one or two 

initial ‘anchor’ large-scale integrated projects) and 17 proposed extensions or components to 

existing CO 2 -EOR networks. These proposals are at varying stages of development. 

• If all these CCS network proposals proceed as planned, they could contribute to upwards of 

331Mtpa CO 2 being captured and stored by around 2030. However, the ‘anchor’ LSIPs associated 

with these network proposals are proposing to store only up to 86Mtpa CO 2 . 

• Of the 77 LSIPs identifi ed in Chapter 3, 33 (43 per cent) are associated with the CO 2 network 

proposals identifi ed in this chapter. 

• While extensive and full deployment of CCS networks may not occur for some time, initial ‘anchor’ 

LSIPs are important for demonstrating and testing their future viability. 

• CO 2 technical specifi cations will be vital to avoid issues with transport and storage arising from 

trying to integrate the deployment of different capture technologies. 

93


5 CO 2 NETWORKS FOR CCS (CONTINUED) 

Most CCS projects are based on transporting CO 2 by pipeline. CO 2 pipelines are a relatively ‘mature’ 

technology that have been in operation for several decades and comprise most of the existing CO 2 

transportation infrastructure around the world. By far the largest concentration is in North America, 

where 5,900 kilometres of pipeline are transporting approximately 50Mtpa CO 2 for EOR (United 

States Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage 2010). A map of the main existing 

and proposed CO 2 pipeline infrastructure in North America is depicted in Figure 41, which includes 

transporting CO 2 from both natural geologic and anthropogenic sources. Only a few CO 2 pipelines 

exist outside of North America, for example in the Netherlands for supplying CO 2 to greenhouses 

and in Turkey for EOR. 

Pipelines are usually the most cost-effective option for transporting large volumes of CO 2 . 

Shipping could also be a competitive option for transporting large volumes over long distances 

(IEAGHG R&D Programme 2004). Assuming access to a port, shipping could be the only 

viable option if onshore pipeline routes and suitable storage locations are not available, and 

because offshore pipelines are signifi cantly more costly. Only three large-scale CCS projects in 

the planning stages are considering transporting CO 2 by ship, two of which are in the Republic 

of Korea. A shipping option is also being considered for a portion of the CO 2 that could be 

potentially captured in the Rotterdam region of the Netherlands. 

Wide deployment of CCS will require extensive transportation infrastructure, particularly CO 2 

pipelines that will need to service many users. Just as pipeline systems have developed over time 

in the oil and gas sector, it would seem natural that a signifi cant share of CO 2 capture and storage 

points for CCS will eventually become interconnected though integrated pipeline networks. 

Much of the existing CO 2 pipeline infrastructure in the world is already based on an integrated 

network approach. Several of the major operating and proposed CO 2 pipelines in the United States 

in Figure 41 (owned and managed by carriers such as Denbury Resources, Kinder Morgan and 

Anadarko) aggregate CO 2 from multiple sources and distribute it to multiple EOR injection sites. 


The main purpose of this chapter is to report on the number and status of initiatives to date 

for advancing the deployment of CCS based on an integrated ‘network’ approach. An integrated 

CO 2 ‘network’ for CCS is defi ned as a system with shared or interconnected infrastructure for 

transporting CO 2 from multiple anthropogenic capture sources to one or more underground 

injection sites for storage. While this chapter focuses mostly on pipeline-based networks, a 

‘network’ concept does not preclude transporting CO 2 by ship. 

A CCS network could also be integrated with supplying CO 2 to industrial users that will not inject 

it underground, such as the food and beverage industry or supplying CO 2 as a ‘fertiliser’ for 

agricultural products in greenhouses. For example, the Organic Carbon Dioxide for Assimilation 

of Plants (OCAP) network in the Netherlands currently distributes up to 380 thousand tonnes per 

annum of CO 2 from Shell’s Pernis refi nery via a pipeline network to 500 horticultural companies 

for use in their greenhouses. While OCAP is not for geological storage, there is a proposal to 

integrate it within a broader network approach being proposed by the Rotterdam Climate Initiative 

that will capture CO 2 from various facilities in the Port of Rotterdam and transport it by pipeline as 

well as ship to geological storage locations underneath the North Sea (Figure 42). This initiative, 

to be fully developed by 2035, represents the concept of a CO 2 ‘hub’ and potentially a regional 

‘aggregation hub’ for CO 2 transported to Rotterdam, including by ship down the Rhine River. 

94


Figure 41 Existing and planned CO 2 pipelines in North America 

CO2 pipelines in North America 

In service 

Proposed 

Different colours represent 

different pipeline operations 

CO2 Sources 

Data supplied by Ventyx, United States Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory and National Carbon Sequestration Database and 

Geographic Information System. 

95



Figure 42 Rotterdam Climate Initiative CCS network 

2025 

2 

7 

3 

5 

1 

4 

6 

Source: Rotterdam Climate Initiative 

1 Shell Pernis 

2 E.ON-ROCA 

3 E.ON Capture facility (2010) 

3 ROAD (2015/2025) 

4 Air Liquide 

5 Abengoa 

6 Air Products 

7 CO 2 

Hub 

Connecting industry to CCS network 

Transport by pipeline 

Transport by ship 

C0 2 

capture 

Green houses 

energy intensive industry 

C0 2 

Hub 

Final plans for the development of the Rotterdam Climate Initiative may not reflect those depicted in this fi gure. 

Source: Rotterdam Climate Initiative 

CCS network proposals often incorporate the concept of a common user storage site. This usually 

involves a ‘backbone’ pipeline that initially transports CO 2 from just one or two sources to a 

particular storage area, but surplus capacity is built in to integrate additional sources in the future. 

For example, the proposed Alberta Carbon Trunkline in Canada will initially transport 1.8Mtpa 

CO 2 from two industrial sources – an existing fertiliser plant and a new oil sands upgrader – to an 

area 240 kilometres away for EOR. But the Trunkline is being designed from the outset to eventually 

accommodate 14Mtpa CO 2 . 

The remainder of this chapter will provide additional background information on the incentives 

and risks of a CO 2 network approach to advance CCS, and then provide a more detailed status 

on all global CO 2 network initiatives related to CCS, including their overall contribution to advance 

the large-scale demonstration of CCS. 

5.2 Incentives and risks for a network approach 

The incentives for CCS projects being developed using a network approach include the economies 

of scale (lower per unit costs for constructing and operating CO 2 pipelines) that can be achieved 

compared to stand alone projects where each CO 2 point-source develops its own independent 

and smaller scale transportation or storage requirements. 

96 

These economies of scale provide an incentive for the proponents of CCS projects clustered in 

the same region to coordinate their development according to an integrated network approach. 

In principle, additional sources can be added in the future provided CO 2 pipeline capacity is 

sized and designed accordingly. A coordinated network approach can then lower the barriers 

of entry for all participating CCS projects, including for emitters who subsequently do not have 

to develop their own separate transportation and storage solutions. For example, the CO 2 Sense 

initiative for establishing a CCS network in the Yorkshire region of the United Kingdom has 

undertaken a pre-feasibility study that calculates a savings of 33 per cent over the longer term 

for their network approach when costs are compared to individual pipelines from each emission 

point to their respective storage sites (CO 2 Sense 2010).


Other benefi ts of an integrated pipeline network that use larger ‘backbone’ pipelines rather 

than a set of smaller unconnected pipelines, are: 

• minimising disturbances to the environment and local community when it comes to their 

construction and operation; 

• minimising and consolidating activities relating to planning and regulatory approvals, 

negotiations with landowners, and public consultations; 

• increasing reliability of CO 2 fl ow based on fl exibility to optimise and balance between supply 

and demand for CO 2 . For example, a temporary shutdown in capture at one source would 

not disrupt the supply of CO 2 to the operators of an injection project; and 

• helping industry, government and other stakeholders achieve alignment around a coordinated 

plan for developing CCS in a region, which could help generate broader support. 

A network approach can also entail additional risks, particularly in the early stages of 

demonstrating CCS on a large integrated scale. These risks include the following: 

• There may be diffi culty in obtaining fi nancing for assets that will initially be ‘oversized’ in 

anticipation of future volumes of CO 2 being added to the network, but where their timing and 

actual realisation of volume growth is uncertain. This ‘oversizing’ could also create a ‘fi rst 

mover’ disadvantage for projects that are competing for fi nancing or government funding 

based on $/tonne of CO 2 stored; 

• It is diffi cult to manage complex fi nancial and commercial structures to accommodate 

numerous partners and their priority access within a network, and to renegotiate these 

structures when policy or regulatory frameworks regarding CCS networks are subsequently 

developed, for example on future third party access to networks; 

• Interoperability issues could arise between different CCS technologies, such as challenges when 

it comes to combining different purity, compression, and dehydration levels between different 

sources of CO 2 feeding into a common network. The extent of these issues is uncertain and 

require further work on CO 2 specifications for common user transportation networks; 

• It is complex to monitor different sources of CO 2 feeding into a common network in which each 

source could fluctuate, but sources need to be individually tracked for emitters receiving specific 

benefits per tonne of CO 2 supplied, such as under an emissions trading scheme or for EOR; and 

• There is uncertainty regarding technical standards for CO 2 transport that could be subsequently 

imposed and complicate the integration of multiple sources or end-users for CO 2. 

Various commercial, fi nancing, and other structures for managing these risks, including ways 

of taking advantage of the opportunities are being considered. This includes options for the role 

of public fi nancing, such as: 

• public investment in infrastructure capacity that can be later sold to future emitters; 

• direct funding to large-scale demonstration projects in support of ‘oversizing’ infrastructure 

that can be later used to create a network; 

• public-private partnerships to establish a special purpose national CO 2 infrastructure ‘entity’; and 

• government loan guarantees, or government loans payable when the network can eventually 

charge for CO 2 transportation. 

Government fi nancial support is helping to advance several of the CCS related network proposals 

that are examined in more detail in the following section. 

97



5.3 Status of CO 2 networks for CCS 

Overall, 31 different CO 2 network initiatives related to CCS have been identifi ed (Table 11), with 

a fairly even split between: 

• fourteen proposals for establishing and coordinating a new CO 2 network for CCS; and 

• seventeen extensions or components of existing CO 2 -EOR networks. 

Tables C-6 and C-7 (Appendix C) provide more details on the proposals in the above two categories 

respectively. While the drivers may be quite different for establishing a new CO 2 network for CCS 

compared to the oil sector extending existing CO 2 networks for EOR, both categories are associated 

with proposals for CCS demonstration projects. Table 11 includes links between these CCS network 

related initiatives and their 

For the new CO 2 network initiatives, an important distinction should be made between the 

‘overarching’ initiative based on integrating multiple CCS projects over time, and ‘anchor’ LSIPs 

identifi ed in Chapter 3 that are also proceeding as the fi rst phase of some of these broader and 

longer-term network initiatives. For example: 

• the proposed CO 2 Sense network in the United Kingdom has identifi ed a long-term potential 

to capture and store upwards of 40Mtpa CO 2 from numerous sources by 2030. There is also a 

parallel focus in the region for advancing two ‘anchor’ LSIPs within this network that combined 

will capture 9-12Mtpa CO 2 by 2020 from the proposed Immingham and Hatfi eld IGCC 

projects; and 

• the Alberta Carbon Trunkline in Canada is designed to accommodate 14Mtpa CO 2 , which 

includes the Enhance Energy EOR LSIP that will initially capture and transport 1.8Mtpa CO 2 

from an existing fertiliser plant and a new oil sands upgrader by 2013. 

For the extensions and components of existing CO 2 -EOR networks, each initiative is synonymous 

with one of the LSIPs identified in Chapter 3. As an extension or component of an existing network, 

there is generally no parallel initiative for establishing and coordinating the creation of a new 

broader network. 

98


Table 11 CO 2 network initiatives related to CCS 

A. NEW CO 2 NETWORK PROPOSALS FOR CCS 

Associated with large-scale integrated ‘demonstration’ 

projects (LSIPs) as identified in Chapter 3 19 : 

1 Rotterdam Afvang en Opslag Demo (ROAD) [58] 

• Rotterdam Afvang en Opslag Demo 

• Capture from additional emitter(s) in the Port of Rotterdam 

such as the Air Liquide Hydrogen plant [40] [28] 

2 CCS in Northern Netherlands 

• Eemshaven RWE [59] 

• Nuon Magnum [47] 

3 CO 2 Sense, United Kingdom 

• Immingham CCS Project [6] 

• Hatfield IGCC [20] 

4 Scottish Cluster, United Kingdom 

• Longannet Clean Coal Power Station [53] 

• APL/Hunterston [21] 

5 North East CCS Cluster, United Kingdom 

• CO 2 capture at proposed Eston Grange and existing 

Lynemouth power stations [9] 

6 Collie Hub Project, Australia 

• CO 2 capture at industrial centres, including existing 

fertiliser plant [36] 

7 Victorian CarbonNet, Australia 

• CO 2 capture at two coal-fired power plants [37] 

8 Masdar CCS Project, United Arab Emirates 

• CO 2 capture at power, steel and aluminium plants [55] 

• Hydrogen Power Abu Dhabi (HPAD) [50] 

9 Alberta Carbon Trunkline/Integrated CO 2 Network, Canada 

• Enhance Energy EOR Project, with CO 2 capture at a 

fertiliser plant and planned oil sands upgrader [66] 

10 Bell Creek EOR, United States 

• CO 2 capture from existing Lost Cabin (Capture project) 

natural gas processing plant and piped to more than one 

existing EOR site. [54] 

B. EXTENSIONS/COMPONENTS OF 

EXISTING CO 2-EOR NETWORKS 

LSIPs identified in Projects Chapter 

that are extensions to existing CO 2-EOR 

Networks: 

1 Project Viking, New Mexico [2] 

2 Faustina Hydrogen, Louisiana [16] 

3 Indiana Gasification [22] 

4 Cash Creek, Kentucky [14] 

5 Leucadia Mississippi [24] 

6 Taylorville Energy Centre IGCC, 

Illinois [35] 

7 Tenaska ‘Trailblazer’ Energy Centre, 

Texas [61] 

8 Lake Charles Gasification Plant, 

Louisiana [51] 

9 Texas Clean Energy Project [60] 

10 Air Products Project, Texas [41] 

11 Entergy Nelson 6 CCS Project, 

Louisiana [48] 

12 Southern Company IGCC Project, 

Mississippi [69] 

13 Occidental Gas Processing Plant, 

Texas [68] 

LSIPs identified in Projects Chapter 

that are operational and connected to a 

broader CO 2-EOR Network: 

14 Salt Creek Enhanced Oil Recovery 

Project, Wyoming [73] 

15 Enid Fertiliser, Oklahoma [70] 

16 Rangely Project, Colorado [72] 

17 Sharon Ridge, Texas [74] 

Less advanced in terms of no association with LSIPs 

identified in Chapter 3: 

11 Thames Cluster, United Kingdom 

12 Interreg Project, Scandinavia 

13 Pennsylvania CCS Network, United States 

14 Ohio Network, United States 

19 

Not including any LSIPs whose status is Delayed or Cancelled. The number in brackets [X] represents the LSIP number listed in 

Table C-2 Appendix C. 

99



These 31 CO 2 network initiatives related to CCS are generally located in regions where more than 

one new CO 2 capture opportunity is being seriously contemplated or there is already a high, 

current concentration of existing CO 2 -EOR network infrastructure. 

Proposals for New CO 2 networks for CCS 

Of the 14 ‘overarching’ proposals for establishing new CO 2 networks for CCS: 

• seven are in Europe around the North Sea, including four different initiatives in the United 

Kingdom; 

• four are in North America; 

• two are in Australia; and 

• one is in the Middle East, in the United Arab Emirates. 

While individual CCS projects are also being proposed in other regions, no evidence was found 

that they are also considering a CO 2 network approach. 

As highlighted in Table 11, 11 of these 14 ‘overarching’ network proposals are also being done 

in parallel or in coordination with more focused efforts to advance one or two specifi c ‘anchor’ 

demonstration projects as part of the network’s initial phase. 

In total, 16 of the LSIPs identifi ed in Chapter 3 are also ‘anchor’ projects for these broader new 

network proposals, including seven LSIPs that have reached the Defi ne stage. Only one of these 

‘anchor’ LSIPs, the Enhance Energy EOR project as part of the Alberta Carbon Trunkline, is 

currently active in the Execute stage. None are at the Operate stage. 

Some ‘overarching’ network proposals encompass more than one ‘anchor’ LSIP, such as 

the proposed Scottish Cluster and the CCS in Northern Netherlands networks that are each 

associated with two ‘anchor’ LSIPs. 

This is evidence that multiple plans to capture CO 2 in a region are also providing an incentive 

to pursue an integrated network approach. Furthermore, besides the planning and design work 

focused on initial ‘anchor’ LSIPs, many of the 14 initiatives for establishing new ‘overarching’ 

networks are also undertaking separate and advanced planning for designing and coordinating 

the overall network, such as: 

• detailed engineering and environmental scoping of the pipeline network, including surplus 

pipeline capacity and optimal routing to accommodate future CO 2 volumes; 

• public consultations and obtaining transport easements for pipeline routes; 

• coordination of construction schedules; 

• establishing fi nancial and regulatory structures that will allow subsequent third-party access; 

• technical reviews of CO 2 storage options; and 

• establishing a formal ‘umbrella’ group to coordinate between the different stakeholders within 

a broad network. 

For example, proposed networks such as the Rotterdam Climate Initiative and the Alberta Carbon 

Trunkline are relatively advanced in terms of advancing plans for both the initial CO 2 volumes 

that will be captured and stored from various ‘anchor’ projects and the larger volumes that will 

be captured over time as the networks expand. However, risks and uncertainty on the timing 

100


and realisation of these larger volumes has translated into these and other ‘overarching’ network 

initiatives requiring government funding to advance. 

An important distinction among the new ‘overarching’ CCS network proposals listed in Table 11 

are the four proposals that are not associated with parallel LSIPs, and that are also relatively less 

advanced in terms of having only undertaken preliminary studies, such as high level CO 2 source 

and sink matching in a particular region, conceptual mapping of potential pipeline routes, and 

initial feasibility studies. This includes the initial scoping of: 

• a proposed Thames Cluster in the United Kingdom that was to have initially centred around 

the recently delayed Kingsnorth demonstration project; 

• potential CO 2 networks in Ohio and Pennsylvania in the United States; and 

• the proposed Interreg network in the Skagerrak and Kattegat regions of Scandinavia. 

Sometimes the more specifi c work required to develop one or two ‘anchor’ demonstration 

projects is much more advanced than any ‘overarching’ efforts to coordinate a broader integrated 

network over the longer term. This is the case for: 

• Scottish Power’s proposed Longannet Clean Coal Power Station, which is fairly advanced in the 

Defi ne stage of the asset lifecycle model, but where plans for developing a broader Scottish 

Cluster are much less advanced; and 

• the Eemshaven RWE and Nuon Magnum LSIPs that are in the Evaluate and Defi ne stages 

respectively, but where a proposal in the region for establishing a CCS in Northern Netherlands 

Network is not as advanced compared to other network proposals. 

Of the 14 proposals for establishing a new integrated CO 2 network, only four are based on EOR: 

• Masdar CCS Project; 

• Alberta Carbon Trunkline; 

• Bell Creek EOR; and 

• Ohio Network, based on a preliminary scoping study. 

Most proposed initiatives for establishing a new network CO 2 for CCS are currently based on 

direct permanent geological storage, including seven different network proposals that involve 

storing CO 2 in various regions under the North Sea. 

Proposed extensions and components of existing CO 2 -EOR networks 

The 17 extensions and components of existing CO 2 -EOR networks in Table 11 are driven mainly 

by opportunities to increase oil production based on access to new sources of CO 2 . This is in 

contrast to most of the above proposals for new CCS networks that are based on direct storage. 

Furthermore, the business model and considerations for tapping into existing CO 2 infrastructure 

are signifi cantly different from the requirements for establishing a new CO 2 network. 

Yet these 17 extensions still represent a kind of ‘network’ approach to helping advance the 

demonstration of CCS. While EOR is the main driver, the reduced barriers of entry by integrating 

with existing infrastructure, plus the revenues associated with supplying CO 2 to EOR operators, 

are also providing an incentive for these extensions to enable activities such as the large-scale 

demonstration of CO 2 capture technologies. As such, each of these 17 extensions are also 

identifi ed as an LSIP in Chapter 3 for demonstrating CCS. 

101



Despite these incentives, several of these proposed extensions are also requiring government 

fi nancial support. For example, the Summit Texas Clean Energy Project, which plans to capture 

CO 2 from a proposed IGCC plant in Texas and feed into Blue Source’s existing Val Verde CO 2 

pipeline for transportation to the Permian Basin for EOR, is receiving support under the United 

States DoE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, Round III. 

Generally, the LSIPs in Table 11 that represent extensions and components of existing CO 2 -EOR 

networks are more advanced than LSIPs that are ‘anchor’ projects for the new CCS networks 

being proposed. This includes four operational LSIPs that are connected to broader CO 2 -EOR 

networks, while two proposed extensions to existing CO 2 -EOR networks are in the Execute stage, 

and another four extensions are in the advanced Defi ne planning stage. 

Contribution of CO 2 networks to advance LSIPs 

Overall, the combined 33 LSIPs that are either proposed ‘anchor’ projects for new CCS networks, 

or extensions and components of existing CO 2 -EOR networks, represent 43 per cent of the overall 

77 LSIPs identifi ed in Chapter 3. Combined, these 33 LSIPs have the potential to capture and 

store up to 86Mtpa CO 2 by 2020 (should they all advance to be operational). 

Beyond 2020, it is the longer-term potential CO 2 volumes identified in the proposals for new CCS 

networks that could have a significant impact on the overall deployment of CCS. This is because 

the average capacity being considered for these new networks over the longer-term is 23Mtpa CO 2 

by around 2030 and beyond. However, there is much variation between proposals. For example, 

1Mtpa CO 2 is being planned into the future for the Bell Creek EOR network project in the United 

States, whereas 50-60Mtpa CO 2 have been identified in a preliminary study on the long-term 

potential of a Pennsylvania CCS Network. 

Figure 43 illustrates that the combined (unrisked) long-term capacity identified in the proposals 

for new CCS networks is around 286Mtpa CO 2 by around 2030 and beyond, and a total of 

331Mtpa CO 2 when adding the proposed extensions and current components of existing CO 2 - 

EOR networks. 20 However, this includes 65Mtpa CO 2 for proposed new CCS networks that have 

undertaken preliminary work only and are not yet associated with any LSIPs identified 

in Chapter 3. 

Figure 43 Unrisked long-term capture and storage capacities by CCS network-related initiatives 

Mtpa of CO 2 by 

around 2030 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 

New CCS network proposals (less advanced with no ‘anchor’ LSIPs) 

New CCS network proposals (that include ‘anchor’ LSIPs) 

Proposed extensions or components of existing CO2-EOR networks 

20 

Based on where information was publicly disclosed. No assumptions were made about extensions and other components of existing 

CO 2-EOR networks growing beyond their current scale. 

102


103


6 LEGAL 

AND REGULATORY 

DEVELOPMENTS 

Significant progress is being made 

developing CCS legal and regulatory 

frameworks globally. This progress must 

continue, particularly in non-OECD countries, 

which will play an important role in global 

CCS deployment. 

104

6 LEGAL AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS 

Regulatory frameworks provide 

commercial certainty, ensure 

effective stewardship and protect 

public health, safety and the 

environment. 

Challenges facing governments in 

developing regulatory frameworks 

include long-term liability and pore 

space ownership, amongst others. 

KEY MESSAGES 

• During the past 12 months, signifi cant progress has been made in the development of CCS 

legal and regulatory frameworks around the world at a national, regional and international level. 

• There has been signifi cant progress in addressing some of the most diffi cult CCS legal and 

regulatory challenges, such as long-term liability, with a number of countries and regions 

having implemented regulatory approaches to address this issue. 

• Progress has been mainly limited to countries and regions that are part of the OECD, in particular 

Australia, Europe, the United States and Canada, with less progress seen in non-OECD regions. 

• Regulatory development in non-OECD countries will be of particular importance moving forward 

as CCS is seen as being critical to CO 2 mitigation outside the OECD, particularly in the largest 

emitting non-OECD countries such as China. 

• It will also be necessary to review the work done on CCS legal and regulatory frameworks as 

large-scale CCS projects move closer to operation and frameworks that are currently in place 

begin to be tested. 

This chapter was written by Brendan Beck and Justine Garrett of the International Energy Agency 

© OECD/IEA, 2011 

105


6 LEGAL AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS (CONTINUED) 

The IEA identifi es CCS as a crucial component of the least-cost portfolio of technologies required 

to reduce energy-related CO 2 emissions in line with global climate stabilisation targets. To reach 

its emissions reduction potential, CCS, as shown in the IEA 2009 CCS Roadmap, must move 

rapidly from its current research and early demonstration phase into large-scale, commercial 

deployment in all parts of the world: around 100 CCS projects are envisaged by 2020, and more 

than 3,000 by 2050. The scale and urgency of CCS deployment required for the technology 

to effectively contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions present a signifi cant 

regulatory challenge – appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks are required to provide 

commercial certainty, ensure the effective stewardship of CO 2 storage sites, and protect public 

health, safety and the environment. 


This chapter provides an update on global progress in implementing frameworks to regulate 

CCS demonstration projects and large-scale commercialisation. It is presented in three sections: 

• section 6.2 discusses some of the key challenges countries are facing in developing regulatory 

approaches to CCS. Despite these challenges, signifi cant progress is being made towards 

developing CCS legal and regulatory frameworks worldwide; 

• section 6.3 provides a brief update on global, national- and regional-level regulatory 

developments in key early-mover regions, including Australia, the European Union and 

North America, and beyond; and 

• section 6.4 looks at progress made by the international community in advancing CCS 

deployment, including through the amendment of certain international legal instruments, 

such as the London Protocol and the OSPAR Convention, and in the context of the UNFCCC. 

6.2 Key challenges in regulating CCS 

There are a number of challenges facing governments as they develop frameworks to address the 

broad range of regulatory issues associated with CCS. Some of the key issues include long-term 

liability, pore-space ownership, operator contributions to post-closure stewardship, and defi ning 

and applying the CCS-ready concept (IEA 2010c). 

Long-term liability 

Long-term liability has increasingly been acknowledged as perhaps the most challenging issue 

associated with regulation of CO 2 storage activities. There is no broad consensus across the fi rstwave 

of CCS regulatory frameworks currently in place or under development in Europe, Australia, 

the United States and elsewhere on the issue of long-term liability. Rather, the issue tends to be 

addressed in one of two ways: either provision is made for transfer of responsibility to the relevant 

government authority, or long-term liability is not discussed. 

Frameworks that adopt the fi rst approach include: 

• directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the 

geological storage of carbon dioxide (European Union CCS Directive); 

• Australia’s federal offshore-storage legislation; and 

• the Canadian province of Alberta’s recently introduced CCS legislation. 

106


The second approach can be seen in the Australian State of Victoria as well as in some parts 

of the United States (see Table 12). 

Where a regulatory framework is silent on the issue of long-term liability, it is assumed that the 

operator retains responsibility for a storage site in perpetuity. Regulatory frameworks that provide 

for a transfer of liability generally require the operator to satisfy the relevant authority that there is 

negligible risk of future leakage or other irregularity in the storage site. The operator may also be 

required to provide a financial contribution to post-closure stewardship before the relevant authority 

will assume responsibility for the site. Once responsibility has been transferred, the operator is likely 

to be absolved of all responsibilities for the storage site and the relevant authority will be responsible 

for any liabilities (except potentially if operator fault prior to transfer is determined), monitoring and 

any corrective or remediation measures. The relevant authority will be able to draw on any financial 

contribution from the former operator in meeting any financial responsibilities. It is likely that there 

will be further discussion in this area when projects start to develop and test the frameworks that 

have been put in place. 

Pore space ownership and competing uses of the subsurface 

Pore space ownership and competing uses of the subsurface are also critical issues in some 

jurisdictions. Ownership of subsurface pore-space is of particular relevance in the United States, 

where – in contrast to most other jurisdictions – the subsurface geology is not necessarily owned 

by the government. Where the government has ownership of the pore space, the government will 

be responsible for determining property access and allocation. 

A particular challenge for governments in this area is how competing uses of the subsurface are 

managed (for example, how CO 2 storage interacts with existing or potential oil and gas production 

activities or geothermal energy production). Currently, governments may favour oil and gas 

production activities rather than CO 2 storage operations. This priority may change over time as 

more emphasis is placed on reduction of CO 2 emissions. Accordingly, fl exibility should be built 

into legal and regulatory frameworks so that any changes in government priorities can be easily 

dealt with. Such fl exibility has already been seen in a number of regions where the issue of 

priority access to subsurface pore space is decided on a case-by-case basis. 

Financial contribution to post-closure stewardship 

In jurisdictions that provide for transfer of responsibility for a storage site to the relevant authority 

in the post-closure phase, operators are generally required to make a fi nancial contribution to 

the relevant authority’s potential long-term stewardship costs (for example, costs associated with 

monitoring or undertaking corrective or remediation measures and any liabilities). 

When considering imposing a fi nancial contribution on operators or potential contribution levels, 

it is important to balance the desire to ensure the availability of funds to cover potential costs 

associated with a storage site with the economic viability of CCS projects, in the sense that CCS 

deployment may be hindered where fi nancial contribution obligations imposed on industry are 

disproportionate to the perceived risks associated with CCS or unduly burdensome. 

In most jurisdictions that contemplate such provisions, the level of fi nancial contribution and the 

method in which the contribution will be made has not been set out in detail in primary legislation 

(leaving it to the regulator, for example, to specify in storage authorisations how fi nancial 

contributions will be sought, or to secondary legislation to provide such detail). 

107



In Europe, for example, while the European Union CCS Directive provides that operators should 

contribute to long-term stewardship costs, it is left to member states to add this detail in transposing 

the directive. That said, the European Union is in the process of developing guidelines, including on 

how financial contribution mechanisms could be calculated and accrued, to assist member states 

in transposing the directive. Although not strictly binding on member states, the guidelines are 

likely to be highly persuasive. In early consultation on the guidelines, operator contribution to postclosure 

stewardship was the most contentious issue, with some stakeholders feeling the approach 

suggested would be unduly burdensome on the development of CCS projects in Europe. 

CCS ready 

Even as CO 2 mitigation incentives are being developed and strengthened and barriers to CCS 

removed, large plant that do not take into consideration the potential deployment of CCS are still 

being built. While it is understandable that without the necessary regulatory and economic drivers 

in place, these plant are unlikely to fi t CCS, there is a growing consensus that they should be built 

to be CCS ready (CCSR) to facilitate the retrofi t of CCS in the future and ensure that emissions 

from these plants are not ‘locked-in’. 

During the past twelve months, there has been some development in global understanding of 

CCSR and how the concept may be appropriately defi ned at an international level. The IEA, 

CSLF and the Global CCS Institute have defi ned a list of essential requirements for a CCSR 

facility. This list of essential requirements was included in the report to the G8 submitted to the 

Muskoka conference in 2010 (IEA and CSLF 2010) and builds on previous work undertaken by, 

amongst others, the IEA, IEAGHG R&D Programme and the Global CCS Institute. At a national 

and regional level, some jurisdictions have already mandated CCSR, including the European 

Union and the United Kingdom. South Africa has also placed a CCSR requirement as part of 

the record of decision process for a new power plant that has been proposed in the country. 

6.3 National and regional developments 

Signifi cant progress has recently been made towards developing CCS legal and regulatory 

frameworks worldwide. A brief discussion of key developments is included below. 

United States 

In the United States, regulatory competence for CCS is shared between federal and state 

governments. Progress has been made at both a federal and state level in 2010. Federally, the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been the most active regulatory body 

and will be the principal regulator for CO 2 storage operation and accounting. 

The United States EPA fi nalised two new rules relating to CCS on 22 November 2010. The fi rst 

rule is based around the protection of underground drinking water and sets requirements for 

the storage of CO 2 , including the development of a new class of injection well called Class VI, 

established under the United States EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program. The rule 

requirements are designed to ensure that wells used for CO 2 storage are appropriately sited, 

constructed, tested, monitored and closed. The second rule relates to greenhouse gas reporting 

requirements for facilities that carry out CCS. Information gathered under the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program will enable the United States EPA to track the amount of CO 2 stored 

by these facilities. 

108


Signifi cant progress has also occurred at a state level, with some states pushing ahead of the 

federal process. Currently, there are more than 14 states that have in place regulation covering 

some or all aspects of the CCS chain. The states that are most advanced in this area are listed 

in Table 12, with an indication of the regulatory progress that has been made to date. 

Table 12 United States jurisdictions with advanced CCS regulation 

STATE 

Colorado 

STORAGE SITE 

PERMITTING 

PROPERTY 

RIGHTS 

LONG-TERM 

STEWARDSHIP 


INCENTIVES 

✔ 

Illinois ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Kansas ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Louisiana ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Mississippi 

✔ 

Montana ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

New Mexico 

✔ 

North Dakota ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Oklahoma ✔ ✔ 

Texas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Utah 

Washington 

✔ 

✔ 

West Virginia ✔ ✔ 

Wyoming ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Table modifi ed from work done by CCSReg – www.ccsreg.org 

Canada 

Canada has decades of experience with various components of CCS from its activities in the oil 

and gas sector. Canada has a federal constitutional structure, with the Canadian Constitution 

distributing legislative power between the federal and provincial governments. Some CCS-related 

matters are within provincial jurisdiction, others are within federal jurisdiction, and some are 

shared. Therefore, depending on a particular CCS project, a level of government may have more 

or less jurisdiction over the project. 

The Canadian Federal Government has announced its intention to develop greenhouse gas 

regulations that will require new coal-fi red power plants and those reaching the end of their 

economic life to meet a stringent emissions performance standard. This standard could 

encourage investment in cleaner power generation technologies such as CCS. CCS projects may 

also trigger federal responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 1992. 

Examples of triggers include federal funding for CCS projects, projects on federal lands, and 

transboundary projects. 

At a provincial level, in December 2010, Alberta passed the Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes 

Amendment Act 2010, which will provide the legislative framework necessary for the deployment 

of commercial-scale CCS in the province. The Act addresses the issue of pore space ownership, 

while setting the framework to manage disposal rights, access rights, monitoring, measuring 

and verifi cation and long-term liability, which will be further clarifi ed through regulations. British 

Columbia and Saskatchewan both have mature oil and gas industries supported by strong 

109



regulatory frameworks relevant to CCS deployment, but these provinces have not progressed 

as far as Alberta in terms of developing dedicated CCS frameworks. 

Australia 

Australia has made significant progress in developing CCS legal and regulatory frameworks and 

is one of the most advanced countries in the world in this area. In accordance with Australia’s 

federal system of government, CCS activities are regulated at both a state and federal level. 

The federal government has jurisdiction over Commonwealth waters, which extend from three 

nautical miles offshore to the edge of Australia’s continental shelf. The state and territory 

governments have jurisdiction over onshore areas and coastal waters, which extend to three 

nautical miles off the coastline of Australia. 

CCS legislation is currently in place at a federal level (for injection and storage in Commonwealth 

waters) and also for CCS activities in onshore Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. 

Legislation is in the process of being developed and enacted by New South Wales and Western 

Australia for those states’ onshore areas. 

At a federal level, in 2008, the Australian Commonwealth government passed the Offshore 

Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Act 2008 to amend the Offshore Petroleum 

Act 2006. Numerous supporting regulations have since been passed, including regulations to 

address the environmental impact of CCS, the management of greenhouse gas well operations, 

datum and safety. Injection and storage regulations were circulated to stakeholders for comment 

on 3 May 2010 and are anticipated to be released in around March 2011. 

At a state level, Victoria passed the Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008, allowing 

for CO 2 storage onshore. The legislative development process in Victoria was shaped, to a large 

extent, by the lessons learnt from the CO2CRC Otway Pilot Project. In 2009, Queensland enacted 

its onshore CCS legislation, the Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2009 with underpinning CCS 

regulations coming into force on 9 April 2010. CCS regulation in Western Australia is currently 

being developed as an amendment to the existing Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources 

Act 1967. The Barrow Island Act 2003 is project-specifi c legislation that was enacted in 2003 

to regulate the Gorgon Project in Western Australia. In New South Wales, the Greenhouse Gas 

Storage Bill 2010 is currently stalled following concerns about the impact of CCS on farming. 

In the future, Australia must resolve transboundary issues arising from the shared federal and 

state competence for CCS regulation and reach a consensus to the treatment of long-term liability 

in Commonwealth and state CCS legislation. Currently, the Commonwealth legislation provides 

for long-term liability for storage sites to transfer to the government, while under some state 

legislation, operators retain long-term responsibility. 

Europe 

The development of CCS legal and regulatory frameworks in Europe is based around the 

European Union CCS Directive, which provides a framework for regulating CO 2 storage, including 

requirements on permitting, composition of the CO 2 stream, monitoring, reporting, inspections, 

corrective measures, closure and post-closure obligations, transfer of responsibility to the state, 

and fi nancial security. The European Union CCS Directive also amends a number of other 

European Union laws to establish requirements on capture and transport operations and 

remove existing legal barriers to the geological storage of CO 2 . 

110


Following the fi nalisation of the European Union CCS Directive, member states have been in 

the process of transposing the directive into domestic law, a process that must be fi nalised by 

25 June 2011. To assist with this process, the European Commission is providing guidance to the 

member states on the transposition and implementation of the European Union CCS Directive by 

preparing guidance documents on a number of its elements. The draft guidelines deal with CO 2 

storage lifecycle risk management, site characterisation, CO 2 stream composition, monitoring 

and corrective measures, transfer of responsibility, fi nancial security and fi nancial contribution. 

The European Commission consulted on these documents (a process ending in July 2010) and 

was fi nalising the guidelines at the time of publication. The IEA CCS Legal and Regulatory Review 

(2010d) highlights the progress made in a number of the member states towards transposing the 

European Union CCS Directive, including France, Germany, Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Spain 

and the United Kingdom. 

Additional developments 

Beyond the early mover countries and regions, a number of other countries are also progressing 

with the development of legal and regulatory frameworks, including countries such as Japan, 

Korea and South Africa. 

In certain non-OECD countries, it is not clear exactly how CCS legal and regulatory framework 

development will progress. For example, in countries where state-owned companies are the fi rst 

to operate CCS projects, CCS may be regulated more under existing oil and gas agreements, with 

the extent and nature of government regulation of CCS practices developing in partnership with 

operators as experience is built up. 

6.4 International progress 

In recent years, the international community has amended a number of international legal 

instruments, including international marine legislation and climate change frameworks, to advance 

CCS deployment. In November 2006, the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of 

Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Protocol) was amended to 

allow for offshore CO 2 storage. This amendment was made to the Annex to the Protocol, which 

meant that the amendment came into force without having to be ratified by contracting parties. 

The London Protocol was again amended in October 2009 to allow for cross-border transportation 

of CO 2 for the purposes of storage. Unlike the 2006 amendment, the 2009 amendment modifies 

the body of the protocol and so will only enter into force after two-thirds of all contracting parties to 

the London Protocol have adopted the amendment. Cross-border transportation of CO 2 is currently 

therefore still prohibited under the London Protocol. At this stage it appears that it may take some 

time to have a sufficient number of contracting parties ratify the amendment. Countries that have 

not seen ratification of the London Protocol as a priority to date (because, for example, CCS activity 

in that country will occur onshore rather than offshore) could potentially consider ratifying the 

London Protocol to facilitate global CCS deployment. 

21 

With the exception of its Article 33 (capture-readiness assessment), which had to be transposed by 25 June 2009. 

111



The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic 

(OSPAR Convention) was also amended in 2007 to adopt similar provisions. Again, the 

amendments are not yet in force and require ratifi cation by at least seven contracting parties 

under the OSPAR Convention’s ratifi cation provisions to enter into effect. To date, six contracting 

parties to the OSPAR Convention have ratifi ed the amendment, which means the Convention 

does not expressly enable some confi gurations of CCS activities to occur and may in fact impede 

the development of the technology in certain regions. However, with only one more party required 

to ratify the changes, the amendment may enter into force in the near future. 

In terms of international frameworks for climate change, at the COP16 climate change 

negotiations in Cancun, Mexico in November and December 2010, it was determined that CCS 

should be included as an eligible CDM project activity, subject to a number of specifi ed issues 

being addressed and resolved in a satisfactory manner. This development represents the most 

signifi cant progress that has been made towards an internationally led incentive mechanism 

for regulating and supporting CCS operations in developing countries over the past fi ve years. 

It is a signifi cant step forward. 

112


113



COSTS 

A wide range of uncertainty exists around 

CCS project costs, particularly up-front 

capital costs. Emerging information from 

projects and new studies indicate increasing 

estimated costs for all capture technologies. 

114

7 CCS COSTS 

Estimated electricity costs are 

highly variable across countries, 

varying up to 50 per cent. 

Avoided CO 2 costs range from 

US$62-81/tonne for coal 

and exceed US$100/tonne for 

gas – excluding site-specific 

investment costs. 

Preliminary real IGCC project 

investment cost information ranges 

between US$3,280-9,470/kW. 

KEY MESSAGES 

• Project costs can vary signifi cantly based on location-specifi c factors such as labour rates, fuel 

costs, and fuel characteristics. With high volatility in plant construction costs and few new coalfi 

red power plants without CCS being constructed, real project costs are diffi cult to gauge. 

• The largest uncertainty in the cost of large-scale demonstration plants occurs in the up-front capital 

costs. Incorporating CCS facilities increases capital investment costs by around 30 per cent for 

an IGCC facility and between 80 and 100 per cent for the other coal and gas based technologies. 

Installed investment costs represent approximately 45-50 per cent of the estimated levelised cost of 

electricity for coal-based plants. 

• Oxyfuel combustion has a lower relative cost on both levelised electricity costs and avoided CO 2 costs. 

At the same time, oxyfuel technologies are the least mature technologies and have a higher level of 

uncertainty. At this stage, it is difficult to identify any single technology with a clear cost advantage. 

• More detailed engineering design and cost considerations have occurred for large-scale IGCC 

plants with CCS than for other power generation applications at present. Based on the general 

trend of identifi ed cost estimates for IGCC plants, which increased as projects were further 

defi ned, it can be expected that cost estimates for other capture technologies may also increase 

relative to the costs reported in design studies. That is, the relative economics of oxyfuel 

combustion, post-combustion CO 2 capture and IGCC may change as projects using these 

technologies undergo more detailed evaluations in the future. 

• The economics of CO 2 storage is affected by the geology of the target storage formation. Without 

an appropriate storage site that is accessible by effective transport options, CCS may not be an 

appropriate option in certain circumstances. Nonetheless, in the technology cost studies recently 

released, storage costs contribute less than fi ve per cent under ideal conditions, increasing to 

around 10 per cent for storage sites with ‘poorer’ geologic properties. 

• The different cost estimates observed in design studies often arise due to differences in 

assumptions regarding technology performance, the cost of inputs or the methodology used 

to convert the inputs into levelised costs. For the recently released studies by the IEA, the 

United States DoE and by WorleyParsons (commissioned study by the Institute), many of these 

differences disappear when the assumptions are normalised and a common methodology 

applied. The effect of any individual assumption from each of the studies on the estimated 

levelised cost for power generation is generally of the order of 5 per cent. 

• Studies released in 2010 present cost estimates consistently higher than those estimated only two 

to three years ago. Due to changing methodologies and the inclusion of previously omitted items, 

costs are now suggested to be 15-30 per cent higher than earlier estimates. 

115


7 CCS COSTS (CONTINUED) 


This chapter assesses information on costs that emerged during 2010 including preliminary 

project cost information as well as three detailed CCS technology cost studies. These studies 

build on growing experience with the performance of small-scale demonstrations and improved 

understanding of costs. They provide the most up-to-date cost estimates available. The refinements 

made in more recent technology cost studies, together with project cost information reveal that 

the costs of large-scale CCS projects may be higher than previously understood. 

7.2 The purpose of cost estimates 

Information on costs of energy technologies are often estimated as a part of an overall technology 

feasibility screening (or process) or as part of identifying total investment costs for a unit that will 

operate at a specifi c site. The differing objectives and approaches to undertaking cost estimates 

mean that a particular cost estimate must be examined and interpreted with care as they may 

not always refl ect real project costs. Alternatively, they do not always allow for comparison of 

underlying technology costs. 

Most reported CCS cost and performance studies in the public domain are designed to provide 

information regarding the comparative costs of specifi c CCS technologies and the factors that 

affect those costs. 

Technology costs or design studies are completed as part of an overall feasibility screening process 

that aims to compare the expected costs of two or more different technologies for a specific 

application. In these type of studies, it is much more important that the differences in costs be 

accurately assessed than it is to accurately assess the expected project cost. Technology-levelling 

assumptions are made so that the true differences in typical plant configurations are highlighted. 

As a result, these studies are typically poor predictors of specific project costs because they cannot 

accurately account for the variation in site and owner specifications included in a real project cost. 

In contrast, reported project costs for specifi c projects aim to provide the owner with as accurate 

an estimate as possible of all the project costs that must be fi nanced. The technology has 

already been selected, and the focus is on the many site-specifi c elements that affect a project’s 

cost. For example, fuel types and resource availability affect plant confi guration and require 

equipment and operations different from the typical plant confi gurations that are generally used 

for technology screening studies. Site-specifi c labour and commodity costs affect costs whilst 

owner’s preferences regarding contracting arrangements and risk management approaches are 

often not explicitly considered in screening studies. 

Even within a single country, regional factors infl uencing labour costs or fuel types can change 

costs for otherwise identical projects. For example, in the United States, the difference between 

labour costs in union vs non-union workforces alone can increase project costs by 20 per cent 

(WorleyParsons 2011). By the time the costs of a specifi c project are reported, only the cost of 

a single technology is presented that takes into account site specifi c requirements and owner’s 

preferences. 

116


The challenge of comparing costs based on reported project costs can be illustrated by 

considering cost information from selected IGCC projects. Several projects are relatively 

advanced in their development phase and have released a variety of cost estimates publicly. 

Most of these projects are primarily greenfi eld IGCC facilities that are being constructed or are 

near construction (although some have been subsequently delayed). Sample projects and their 

reported costs are listed in Table 13. 

Table 13 Comparing costs for emerging IGCC projects 

PROJECT LOCATION GASIFIER OUTPUT 

REPORTED 

COST 

COST SCALED 

TO 500MW 

MW (NET) US$/KW US$/KW 

Wandoan Power Australia General Electric 

Energy 

400 9,470 8,101 

HECA CA, United States General Electric 

Energy 

250 9,200 5,663 

Taylorville IL, United States Siemens 602 5,814 6,621 

Edwardsport 1 IL, United States General Electric 618 4,600 5,405 

Energy 

Hatfield England Shell 900 3,278 4,946 

Kemper MS, United KBR 582 3,780 4,204 

States 

1. 

The Edwardsport project is being developed as a capture-ready facility. 

Source: WorleyParsons 2010 (private communication) 

Published cost estimates for projects tend to provide limited details on what is included or 

excluded in the cost estimate. To compare the costs on a common basis, the reported costs were 

adjusted to 2010 US$ per kilowatt (kW) and scaled to 500 megawatts (MW). This approach – 

called normalisation – allows for location-specifi c costs to be approximately identifi ed. 

Before normalisation, estimated costs ranged from US$9,470-3,278/kW – a factor of almost 

three. After normalisation, estimated project costs ranged from US$8,101-4,204/kW. The range 

from highest to lowest has decreased but is still large – the highest to lowest cost differing by a 

factor of almost two. 

More detailed engineering design and cost estimates have been undertaken for large-scale IGCC 

plants with CCS than for any other power generation application. However, without access to 

detailed project-specifi c information, project-based costs provide limited guidance on underlying 

technology costs. For an IGCC plant with CCS installed, the difference in location-specifi c costs 

can result in costs varying by almost 100 per cent (Figure 44). 

117



Figure 44 Normalising emerging IGCC project costs 

Size of plant in MW 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 

Cost in US$kW 

10,000 

HECA 

Wandoan Power 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

Wandoan Power 

Taylorville 

HECA 

Edwardsport 

Hatfield 

Kemper 

Taylorville 

Edwardsport 

Kemper 

Hatfield 

2,000 

0 

Reported costs by size of plant 

Reported costs scaled to 500MW 

7.3 CCS design study estimates in 2010 

118 

A number of detailed CCS cost studies were released during 2010, primarily with a focus on 

power generation costs. In chronological order, these include: 

• IEA (2010e) Projected costs of generating electricity. 

– This study presents the projected costs of generating electricity calculated according 

to common methodological rules on the basis of data provided by participating countries 

and organisations. Data were received for a wide variety of fuels and technologies including 

CCS using post-combustion capture for coal and IGCC technologies. 

• DOE NETL (2010) Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy power plants study, Volume 

1: Bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity (Revision 2). 

– This study, updating the 2007 edition, provides detailed cost and performance information 

on pulverised coal combustion plants, IGCC, and NGCC plants, all with and without carbon 

dioxide capture and storage assuming that the plants use technology available today. 

– This is the only public study to separately identify detailed IGCC plant confi gurations 

and gasifi ers across three different equipment suppliers: General Electric Energy (GE), 

ConocoPhillips (CoP) and Shell Global Solutions (Shell). 

• WorleyParsons (2011) Economic assessment of carbon capture and storage technologies: 

2011 update. 

– Commissioned by the Global CCS Institute, this report updates the 2009 study covering 

generation technologies and selected industrial technologies. 

– The study also improved country localisation approaches as well as the detail on storage 

cost estimates including two different storage site confi gurations. 

In addition, a number of other studies were released recently such as Blyth (2010), Kolstad 

and Young (2010) and Al-Juaied and Whitmore (2009). These type of studies often rely on 

information provided from the above studies or from EPRI, whose detailed design studies are 

generally not publicly released, and are not considered in this chapter. 

Summary information on plant confi guration and cost estimates across the three cost studies is 

presented in Table 14. Before the cost estimates across these three studies are compared and


contrasted, cost estimates from the WorleyParsons update of the detailed analysis for power 

plants and a select range of industrial applications is considered. The update sought to enhance 

the capital cost estimates underpinning the levelised cost estimates as well as improve the 

regional localisation estimates. 

For the power sector, modelling is based around various coal plant confi gurations across the 

three capture technologies with a net output of around 550 MW, a capture rate of 90 per cent 

and a capacity factor of 85 per cent. For natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants net output 

was modelled as 474 MW with the same capture rate and capacity factors as coal plants. 

Capital costs 

Incorporating the additional capture and compression equipment to establish a CCS power plant 

generally increases the capital intensity of producing electricity from fossil fuels. The capital costs 

associated with the construction of a coal-based power plant fitted with capture technology account for 

approximately 45-50 per cent of the estimated levelised costs of coal-based plants – regardless of the 

capture technology used. In contrast, capital costs account for only 22 per cent of a NGCC plant with 

CCS. Incorporating CCS facilities increases installed capital costs by 23-51 per cent (Figure 45). 

Table 14 Summary of recently completed CCS design cost studies 

POST-COMBUSTION IGCC OXYFUEL NGCC 

WORLEY DOE/ DOE/ DOE/ 

WORLEY DOE/ 

PARSONS NETL NETL NETL WORLEY WORLEY 

PARSONS NETL IEA 1 (SHELL) (SHELL) (COP) (GE) PARSONS PARSONS 

Base year 1,2 2010 2007 2008 2010 2007 2007 2007 2010 2010 2007 

Capacity MW (net) 546 550 474 517 497 514 543 550 482 474 

Total overnight 

cost 

$/kW 4,701 3,570 3,838 4,632 3,904 3,466 3,334 4,430 1,964 1,497 

O&M 3 $/MWh 16 22 14 18 12 6 

Fuel cost $/MWh 34 20 13 33 18 18 17 44 72 52 

Capture rate % 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 

Efficiency 4 % 27.2 26.2 34.8 32.0 31.2 31.0 32.6 29.3 43.7 42.8 

Capacity factor % 85 85 85 85 80 80 80 85 85 85 

Lead time Years 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 3 3 

Lifetime Years 30 30 40 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 

Discount rate % 8.8 9.1 10 8.8 9.1 9.1 9.1 8.8 8.8 9.1 

Transport 5 $/MWh 1 – na 1 – – – 1 1 – 

Storage 6 $/CO 2 6 5.6 na 6 5.7 5.6 5.3 6 6 3.2 

LCOE 7 $/MWh 131 135 90 125 151 140 134 121 123 109 

Avoided cost 

8 

of CO 2 

$/tonne 81 87 ~75 67 77 93 109 57 107 106 

1 

IEA estimates only include the cost of capture and compression. 

2 

Base year for the current dollars estimates of cost components. 

3 

The DOE/NETL study includes payroll and property taxes. Taxes are not in the other studies. 

4 

The IEA report LHV, net heat effi ciency rates, WorleyParsons and the DOE/NETL studies report HHV, net heat effi ciency rates. 

5 

Transport distances are assumed to be 100km and 80km by WorleyParsons and DOE/NETL studies respectively. For DOE/NETL 

transport costs are included in the storage item. 

6 

The DOE/NETL study includes payments for liability for 30 years. 

7 

Levelised costs of electricity. 

8 

Reference facility in all coal technologies is supercritical pulverised coal within each study. Values for Doe/NETL studies calculated 

by Global CCS Institute. 

119 

DOE/ 

NETL



Figure 45 Installed capital costs for 550MW net generation 1,2 

US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5 

Pulverised coal – supercritical 

Integrated gasification 

Oxyfuel combustion 3 

Natural gas CC 

2.6 2.1 

3.6 1.1 

4.4 

1.0 1.0 

w/o CCS 


1 

For fi rst-of-a-kind facilities. 

2 

The NGCC plant is modelled as 474MW net. 

3 

Oxyfuel combustion without capture is not an economically viable option so installed costs are not presented. 

Source: WorleyParsons (2011) 

As discussed earlier, the cost assumptions for design studies do not incorporate location-specifi c 

costs. This is illustrated in Figure 46, where installed costs for IGCC plants reported in the United 

State’s DoE study and the WorleyParsons study are contrasted with emerging IGCC project costs. 

Accounting for differences in scale, the design study costs are all lower than known existing 

project costs. 

Figure 46 Comparing IGCC cost study estimates with reported IGCC project costs 

Size of plant in MW 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 

Capital Cost in US$kW 

10,000 

8,000 

HECA 

Wandoan Power 

6,000 

Taylorville 

4,000 

WorleyParson – Shell 

DOE – Shell 

DOE – CoP 

Edwardsport 

Kemper 

DOE – GE 

Hatfield 

2,000 

0 

Reported investment costs by size of plant 

Design study estimates of investment costs 

Levelised costs 

Levelised costs of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of the average cost of electricity that needs to 

be recovered over all output for the entire economic life of a generating plant in order to justify 

the original investment. Receiving this value, on average, would ensure that all costs including 

the initial capital investment and the return on capital, fuel and other variable costs, together 

with fi xed operation and maintenance costs would be covered. 

120


In the WorleyParsons study, the levelised cost in 2010 dollar terms for different technologies range 

from US$114/MWh for oxyfuel combustion to US$130/MWh for post-combustion capture at a 

supercritical pulverised coal plant (Figure 47). The avoided 22 cost of CO 2 , or levelised abatement 

cost, ranges from US$66/tonne CO 2 for oxyfuel combustion to US$107/tonne CO 2 for natural gas. 

Figure 47 Levelised costs of electricity across different capture technologies 1,2 

US$/MWh 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

US$/tonne CO 2 

Post combustion 

Oxyfuel 

IGCC 

NGCC 

Storage 

Transportation 

O&M 

Fuel 

Captial 

Avoided cost 

1 

The reference facility for calculated avoided costs is the lowest cost option for the same fuel source in the absence of CCS technologies. 

This is a supercritical coal pulverised coal plant, and NGCC plant without CCS for coal and gas technologies respectively. 

2 

2010 dollars. 


The margin of error for reported installed costs and for levelised costs in this study is ±40 per cent. 

As projects move through the various stages of development from Identify to Execute, the level of 

uncertainty around cost estimates decreases as the level of project definition increases with an 

improved understanding of the scope, cost and schedule of the project. More detailed engineering 

design and cost considerations have been identified for large-scale IGCC plants with CCS than 

for other power generation applications, and this information has flowed back into technology 

comparison cost studies. In contrast, oxyfuel technologies are relatively immature, and despite 

the lower cost estimates associated with oxyfuel technologies, the range of uncertainty around 

the estimate is considerably larger than it is for IGCC and post-combustion technologies. 

Based on the general trend of identified cost estimates for IGCC plants, which increased as the 

projects were further defined, it can be expected that cost estimates for other capture technologies 

may also increase relative to the costs reported in design studies above. That is, the relative 

economics of oxyfuel combustion, post-combustion CO 2 capture and IGCC may not be observed 

when projects using these technologies undergo more detailed evaluations in the future. 

22 

The cost per tonne of CO 2 avoided is the additional cost of CO 2 emissions avoided by applying CCS when compared to a non-capture 

reference facility. It is calculated by dividing the difference in the levelised costs, by the difference in CO 2 emissions intensity relative to 

the reference facility. 

121



Variable abatement costs 

In addition to the levelised avoided cost of CO 2 , the variable cost of abatement 23 can also be 

estimated. Once development cost is sunk, the variable abatement cost represents the price on 

carbon that would be sufficient to induce an established CCS plant to operate. The estimated 

variable cost of abatement ranges from US$23/tonne CO 2 for an IGCC plant to US$63/tonne CO 2 

for an NGCC plant (Figure 48). Although the variable abatement cost for IGCC is lower than for the 

other two technologies, this requires the IGCC plant to be built in the first place. Depending on the 

circumstances, an IGCC plant may not be the first plant of choice, as the levelised, or average lifetime, 

cost of abatement may not be sufficient to entice investment originally (Figure 47). 

The variable abatement cost reflects the price of avoiding a penalty for emitting CO 2 that would 

be required to operate a demonstration plant once it had been built. That is, for the demonstration 

projects currently being constructed where some or all of the additional up-front investment costs 

for CCS are met through government programs, this variable abatement cost estimate reflects the 

additional costs of operating the plant. It also provides information on how CCS operations may 

interact with CO 2 offset markets such as those operated through the CDM. 

Variable costs of abatement estimates derived from technology comparison studies should be 

considered with care. As discussed in section 7.2 on the purpose of cost estimates, these studies 

make a number of operational levelling assumptions in order to better estimate differences in 

technology costs within a given situation. However, this sacrifices accuracy in the level of locationspecific 

costs. 

Figure 48 Variable avoided cost of abatement 

US$/CO 2 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 


Oxyfuel 

IGCC 

NGCC 

Variable energy penalty and capture costs 


Regional costs 

Construction and operation costs will vary within and across countries. This is a result of factors 

such as the share of imported equipment and materials used, locally sourced equipment, and 

materials and labour costs (both direct costs and labour productivity). In addition, land costs 

will affect installed costs for initial capital costs. Both the cost and quality of different fuel types 

vary across countries. Setting aside the quality of the storage site, there are known regional 

differences in fi nding costs and MMV costs due to differences in seismic survey costs, monitoring 

costs and injection costs across Europe, the United States and Australia. 

The WorleyParsons study developed indices to adjust the reference CCS cases (based in the 

United States Gulf Coast area) for a range of labour, capital, materials and fuel costs. Costs for 

23 

The variable abatement cost is based on the CO 2 capture cost. The CO 2 capture cost is the incremental cost per tonne of CO 2 captured 

and is calculated by dividing the difference in the total variable cost of generating electricity for an hour relative to the reference plant 

divided by the total CO 2 emissions captured per hour. 

122


coal technologies in Eastern Europe and China are estimated to be around 85 per cent of 

the costs in the United States Gulf Coast, and costs in the European region and Japan are 

40-55 per cent higher (Figure 49). 

Figure 49 Levelised costs as a function of location 

US$/CO 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 

United States 

Saudi Arabia 

Eastern Europe 

China 

South Africa 

Canada 

Australia 

Brazil 

Euro region 

India 

Japan 



Oxyfuel 

IGCC 

NGCC 

Storage costs 

The economics of CO 2 storage is dependent upon the geology of the target formation. The geology 

will drive the storage site selection and the site will drive the commerciality of large-scale, integrated 

CCS projects. That is, without appropriate storage accessible by effective transport options, CCS 

may not be a cost-effective mitigation technology in some situations. 

There is high variability in the geologic properties within a region, as well as across countries. 

In order to assess the impact of different storage formations on costs, WorleyParsons (2011) 

considered two scenarios: a ‘good’ reservoir and a ‘poorer’ reservoir. The poorer reservoir had 

‘poorer’ absolute permeability and reservoir thickness assumptions. Reservoir thickness and 

permeability are two key factors determining the cost of storage, as they can be considered a 

measure of the pore space available for CO 2 storage as well as the injectivity of the site. 

123



These two geological properties strongly influence the number of wells required at commencement 

of injection as well as over the lifetime of the injection period in order to store a given flow of CO 2 

from a source. For reservoirs with ‘poorer’ properties that limit the injection rate for an individual 

well, additional wells in the same area will be required to take all of the CO 2 from the pipeline. 

However, there are diminishing returns to establish additional wells due to pressure interference 

between injection wells that must also be controlled. 

In the scenarios considered (Table 15), the ‘poorer’ storage site is considered to have only 

approximately 10 per cent of the ‘quality’ of the ‘good’ site (as measured by the product of the 

thickness and permeability assumptions). This leads to an increase in the number of wells required 

of around 700 per cent for an annual injection rate of 3Mtpa. The relative increase is slightly less 

for a larger injection flow of 12Mtpa. 

At an injection rate of approximately 3Mtpa, the levelised costs would increase from US$6-13/MWh. 

Overall, the contribution of storage costs to total levelised costs in moving from a ‘good’ reservoir to 

a ‘poorer’ reservoir would increase levelised costs by around 5 per cent across the three capture 

technologies, increasing the share of storage costs to around 10 per cent overall. 

Table 15 Storage site scenario assumptions and outcomes 

NET 

THICKNESS 

ABSOLUTE 

PERMEABILITY 

WELL COUNT 

STORAGE 

CONTRIBUTION 

TO LCOE 1 

m mD FOR 3Mtpa FOR 12Mtpa US$/MWh 

‘Poorer’ reservoir 5 150 16 61 13 

‘Good’ reservoir 15 400 2 8 6 

1. 

For approximately 3Mtpa 


7.4 Industrial sectors 

The CO 2 captured in industrial processes, as reported in the published literature, has not been 

investigated to the same degree as studies conducted for power generation systems. WorleyParsons 

estimated costs by adding CCS components to existing industrial systems for: 

• blast furnace production of steel; 

• cement kiln/furnaces; 

• natural gas processing; and 

• fertiliser production (ammonia). 

Steel and cement production require both capture and compression while natural gas processing 

and fertiliser production are processes that require CO 2 separation from a gas stream already. 

As such, having an installed capture system for these two processes does not contribute to 

increased costs. As a result, the cost of CO 2 avoided is lower for these two commodities 

(Table 16). 

The auxiliary loads for installed capture systems (primarily solvent regeneration and CO 

compression) are the major contributors to the increase in operating expenditure. The auxiliary 

loads are assumed to rely on NGCC power production and the CO 2 generated from power 

production was included in the total process. Novel system designs or systems that require 

signifi cant reconfi guration of the existing process were not considered. 

124


Table 16 Incremental cost of CCS for industrial processes 

BLAST 

FURNACE 

STEEL 

PRODUCTION 

Incremental product 

costs 

Avoided CO 2 cost 

Incremental commodity 

cost increase 


CEMENT 

US$ $82/tonne steel $34/tonne 

cement 

US$/tonne 

CO 2 

NATURAL GAS 

PROCESSING 

$0.056/GJ 

natural gas 

FERTILISER 

PRODUCTION 

$11/tonne 

ammonia 

54 54 19 20 

% 9-13 35-47 1 3 

The incremental increase in the cost of the commodity resulting from incorporating CCS in the 

production process is reported in Table 16. The contribution of installing capture processes to the 

increase in the commodity price is highly dependent on the period in which commodity prices 

are measured. For example, the commodity cost for steel has increased from US$350-500/tonne 

in 2009 to US$570-800/tonne in 2010. As a result, the contribution that CCS has to the overall 

commodity cost is reduced in 2010 if measured relative to 2009. 

7.5 Relative uncertainty across cost studies 

Considering the various technology cost estimates from the IEA, the United States DoE and 

WorleyParsons presented in Table 14, although similar, the LCOE estimates are not fully aligned. 

However, in most technology comparison studies, the relative differences in scope or assumptions 

can often explain apparent anomalies. Even where the assumptions on costs and performance are 

similar, the calculation methodology used to estimate levelised costs can also lead to a divergence 

in results. 

In this section, the impact of different cost and performance assumptions is compared and their 

relative infl uence on calculated LCOE is identifi ed. As each of the studies provides information 

regarding post-combustion technologies and IGCC technologies, this section focuses on these 

two cases as an example. 

To identify the impact of individual assumptions across the studies on the levelised cost, the 

levelised cost estimate was normalised by estimating its cost based on the average of the input 

assumptions using a common methodology (using the discounted cash fl ow approach of the 

IEA). The levelised costs were then estimated again by varying one input assumption at a time 

and comparing it to the normalised cost estimate. 

Tornado charts are used to illustrate the impact each different assumption from the reports 

has on the estimated levelised cost. In addition, the tornado charts also illustrate which input 

assumptions have the greatest impact on estimated costs. For post-combustion capture, the 

analysis is presented in Figure 50. 

The x-axis of the tornado chart is the percentage variation in the estimated levelised cost from the 

mean, where the mean is at zero per cent. The y-axis lists assumptions that have gone into the 

levelised cost calculation. The bars represent the result of a uniform ±30 per cent change in the 

input values against the average case for each input (assumption by assumption). This permits a 

ranking of different parameters according to their relative importance in determining levelised costs 

125



for a given level of uncertainty. For example, the average discount rate used in the three studies 

was 9.3 per cent. Varying this by ± 30 per cent resulted in the LCOE varying by -14-16 per cent 

relative to the normalised cost estimates. 

Figure 50 Comparing and contrasting post-combustion CCS costs 

– + 


Variable O&M 

Lead time 

Fuel cost 

Lifetime 

Discount rate 

Capital 

Percentage % -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 

WorleyParsons assumption DOE assumption IEA assumption 

The tornado chart is also used to identify the impact of individual assumptions by study. 

For example, the IEA study uses a discount rate of 10 per cent; using this assumption (in place 

of the average 9.3 per cent) increases the normalised cost by almost 4 per cent (Figure 50). 

With the exception of fuel costs, the differences in assumptions across the three studies account for 

5 per cent or less in impact on differences in the levelised cost estimates. Across the three studies, 

the variation in fuel costs – which reflects the interaction between efficiency assumptions and fuel 

costs – was substantial. From the highest fuel cost (in $/MWh terms) the largest cost assumption 

from WorleyParsons were almost three times the IEA fuel cost assumptions. The IEA notes that 

the reported coal costs are over-represented by Australia: of the eight plants used to calculate the 

median cost assumptions for coal-fired power plants with CCS, four are from Australia. Australian 

coal costs are the lowest across all OECD countries, and the over-representation of Australia in 

deriving the IEA CCS estimates results in a very low fuel cost assumption. 

The consequence is a very high variation in fuel cost assumptions across the three studies. 

The impact of the variation is that although a variation of ± 30 per cent from the average fuel 

costs would have resulted in approximately ± 6 per cent variation in the levelised costs, the 

assumptions used in the IEA study lead to LCOE decreasing by 8 per cent and the WorleyParsons 

study result in LCOE increasing by 8.5 per cent. 

Variations in transport and storage costs combined are estimated to have the smallest impact 

on total costs. Varying these cost assumptions by ± 30 per cent would only have an estimated 

impact on the LCOE of ± 1.5 per cent. These results will be infl uenced by the underlying 

assumptions of transportation of 80-100km and relatively good reservoir conditions reducing the 

number of injection wells required. 

As geology strongly infl uences storage costs, the upper bound bar for transport and storage was 

estimated by varying the storage cost by 100 per cent. In this case, the impact on levelised costs 

is a 5.5 per cent increase. 

126


The impact of assumptions of determining levelised costs for IGCC plants is presented in 

Figure 51. The capital-intensive nature of CCS results in variation in either capital costs or the 

discount rate having the largest impact on estimated costs, reinforcing the earlier discussion 

around capital cost uncertainty impacting strongly on overall costs. 

Figure 51 Comparing and contrasting IGCC capture costs 


Variable O&M 

Lead time 

Fuel cost 

Lifetime 

Discount rate 

Capital 

– + 

Percentage % -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 

WorleyParsons – Shell DOE – Shell IEA – Shell 

DOE – CoP 

DOE – GE 

Similar to post-combustion plants, the impact of the relative variation in cost assumptions is 

5 per cent or less in most cases, with the IEA fuel assumptions driving signifi cant variation in 

fuel costs. 

Overall, the studies released in 2010 demonstrate a relatively high level of consistency. 

Differences in assumptions do lead to changes in the estimated LCOE, but the individual 

variability is not high. Further, on standardising on an estimation methodology, the relatively small 

differences in LCOE estimates identifi ed in Table 14 are further reduced. 

The relatively modest agreement regarding current cost estimates masks the changes in 

cost estimates that have occurred over time. Estimates released in the last two to three years 

suggested LCOE estimates range of US$100-115/MWh with avoided CO 2 costs ranging from 

US$40-70/tonne CO 2 for coal plants and up to US$85/tonne CO 2 for natural gas. Many studies 

were also suggesting lower costs. In contrast, the above cost studies suggest an upward revision 

of 15-30 per cent relative to earlier studies. 

127


8 REGIONAL 

CCS KNOWLEDGE-SHARING 

INITIATIVES 

Knowledge sharing offers significant 

added value to participants by providing 

opportunities for broader collaboration 

across CCS demonstration programmes 

and between stakeholders. 

128

8 REGIONAL CCS KNOWLEDGE SHARING INITIATIVES 

Funders are looking to maximise 

the benefits of their investment by 

capturing knowledge gained through 

project delivery with a view to 

supporting the further development 

of next-mover CCS projects. 

Maximising the uptake and use of 

web-based technologies as tools to 

augment the value of face-to-face 

models for knowledge sharing has 

become apparent. 

In order to avoid fragmentation of 

knowledge-sharing initiatives, there is 

a need to connect regional networks 

focused on CCS. 

KEY MESSAGES 

• There have been many developments in CCS knowledge sharing over the past 18 months, 

driven by the recognition of its crucial role in accelerating project deployment. 

• The Global CCS Institute’s and European Commission’s knowledge-sharing frameworks are 

being used as design models for regional knowledge-sharing programs. 

• A needs-specifi c approach to knowledge sharing provides more targeted and focused data, 

information and knowledge to various stakeholders. Thus, considering topical themes that will 

push CCS knowledge further, and making use of fi ne-tuned knowledge-sharing mechanisms 

and tools are becoming more common. 

• The establishment of a harmonised approach to knowledge sharing allows global utilisation of 

data, information and knowledge captured. This is partly driven by concerns that a fragmented 

approach on knowledge sharing will draw on scarce resources within projects and partly by 

fears for missed opportunities for accelerating CCS deployment. 

129


8 REGIONAL CCS KNOWLEDGE SHARING INITIATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Sharing know-how, know-why and lessons learned from CCS demonstration is central to the 

timely creation of a commercially sustainable CCS industry. By sharing the knowledge created 

by such experiences, governments and industry can support accelerated technology diffusion, 

improved public awareness, cost reduction, and accelerated innovation. 

In recent years, announcements of support for large-scale CCS demonstration projects have been 

made in numerous parts of the world, including Australia, North America, the European Union, 

and China among others. As these initiatives represent a commitment of signifi cant public and 

private resources, funders are looking to maximise the benefi ts of their investment by capturing 

knowledge gained through project delivery with a view to supporting the further development of 

next-mover projects. 


This chapter presents the case for knowledge sharing as well as a review of regional CCS 

knowledge-sharing initiatives, which have been initiated in the past 18 months. Specifi cally, it 

examines the knowledge-sharing frameworks proposed and in use, the drivers and challenges, 

topical themes, tools and technologies being implemented to support CCS knowledge sharing 

from the publicly funded demonstration programs in Australia, Alberta, Canada, the European 

Union, Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as project 

support offered by the Global CCS Institute. These initiatives were selected for consideration as 

each incorporates various requirements for knowledge sharing in return for funding support. 

8.2 Why knowledge sharing 

Knowledge sharing involves the sharing of information, experiences and lessons learned to 

enable individuals and organisations to collaborate and function more effi ciently on a given task. 

This enables: 

• knowledge consumers to build on the successes and failures of previous work; 

• knowledge providers to benefi t by gaining credibility as an expert by helping shape an area 

in their direction or grow the market; and 

• knowledge providers to benefi t by having their ideas improved upon or questions answered 

by sharing knowledge with a broader set of users. 

Beyond this simplifi ed provider-consumer model, effective knowledge sharing involves an 

engaged, collaborative process with many interactions. Critical to understanding knowledge 

sharing is the realisation that it is not just about ‘knowledge products’, but it is about connecting 

people. Much of the knowledge that is shared is not packaged into a formal report but comes in 

a much more transactional fashion such as answering questions. The emergence of social web 

technologies over the past 10 years has been instrumental in connecting individuals through 

digital systems in a global and pervasive fashion. 

130


The Global CCS Institute, for instance, defi nes the types of CCS knowledge it shares as shown 

in Table 17. The levels of access apply to each content type, whether the knowledge is public, 

restricted, or confi dential. 

Table 17 Types of CCS knowledge 

CONTENT TYPES 

Packaged Knowledge – formally written, peer-reviewed and published works such as: 

• project reports and case studies; 

• thought leadership and industry analysis; 

• methodologies; and 

• fact sheets. 

Unpackaged Knowledge – conversational and tacit information, often ‘in people’s heads’, as follows: 

• collaborative discussions – open discussions around key questions; 

• thematic focus groups – interactions organised around key CCS topics; and 

• social networks – development of relationships for personal interactions. 

Data – detailed analytical data and information to support evidence-based decisions. 

Visuals – images, multimedia presentations and engaging materials such as learning modules. 

The Institute provides a model for both face-to-face and digital knowledge sharing. The objective 

of digital knowledge sharing is to provide a more accessible forum for a group to continue to 

share ideas and discuss issues in an ongoing and more readily accessible fashion. This approach 

recognises that in many cases, face-to-face knowledge sharing is more effective but aims to provide 

a common focus for knowledge to be shared independent of the collaboration mechanism. 

131



8.3 The case for effective knowledge sharing 

There is a strong case that knowledge sharing is critical to accelerate CCS deployment. Effective 

knowledge sharing provides benefi ts in at least six areas (Figure 52). 

Figure 52 Benefits of effective knowledge sharing 

Innovation 

Exchange 

Project 

Delivery 

Global 

Connectivity 

Build the 

Market for 

CSS 

Effective 

Spending 

Public 

Engagement 

Capacity 

Building 

• Sharing lessons learned and developing common methods to enable higher quality, lower risk 

project delivery. 

• There is a particularly strong case to share knowledge to enable a more effective use of public 

funding by maximising the benefi ts of the investment. 

• Capacity building is enabled through effective knowledge sharing by providing the market with 

the required skills and resources, particularly in economies where there is little CCS activity. 

• Public engagement requires trust, with greater openness and transparency made available 

through a knowledge sharing approach that engages the public. 

• Connecting individuals around the world is critical as CCS projects are being rolled out in all 

geographies, with some regions taking the lead in different areas. 

• Market opportunity and connecting people are two of the key drivers for innovation. 

In summary, CCS is still in an early stage of maturity. There are benefits to all stakeholders to 

rapidly ‘grow the pie’ of deployed projects. The best model to emulate in this regard has been the 

information technology (IT) industry. Over the past 30 years, it has based its tremendous market 

growth on open standards, government investment on areas such as the internet, developing 

skills, finding ways to engage with consumers about complex technologies and fostering global 

connectivity and innovation. While there are certainly differences across industries, the knowledgesharing 

requirements are similar. 

8.4 Sharing knowledge from CCS demonstration projects 

National and regional governments, as well as organisations such as the Global CCS Institute, are 

incorporating provisions into their funding agreements with CCS demonstration projects to require 

benefi ciaries to share the lessons learned and key experiences gained from project delivery. 

132


Although many of these programs are still being developed, there is an increasing consensus 

that the drivers for sponsoring knowledge-sharing initiatives, either on a regional or global scale, 

include the following: 

• accelerating deployment of safe and commercially viable CCS; 

• improving public understanding of, and confi dence in, CCS; 

• supporting capacity and capability development throughout the global CCS community; and 

• improving risk management for CCS. 

Some jurisdictions have also indicated that these additional drivers for knowledge sharing are 

important in their context: 

• feeding CCS research; 

• developing regulatory frameworks; and 

• maintaining an open market for post-demonstration deployment of CCS. 

Each of the regions have developed, in varying levels of maturity, their own frameworks for 

sharing knowledge from CCS project delivery. The frameworks are formed around similar 

principles that foster collaboration between project proponents. Other jurisdictions are adopting 

key aspects of these frameworks as a starting point for their own program designs. The United 

Kingdom is taking a similar approach to develop the knowledge-sharing arrangements for 

projects two, three, and four under its CCS Demonstration Program. Connecting these initiatives 

would provide benefi ts both in terms of sharing projects lessons learned as well as techniques for 

effective knowledge sharing. 

The European Commission has publicly set out its requirements for knowledge sharing through a 

formal protocol. The protocol requires that members of the European CCS Demonstration Project 

Network actively participate in knowledge-sharing events, provide regular updates back to the 

Project Network on a series of knowledge categories, as well as provide fact sheet information for 

broader sharing on a public website. This network is one of the more mature knowledge-sharing 

initiatives. Together these network activities will support the further development of CCS projects 

in Europe by: 

• facilitating the identifi cation of good practices and lessons learned from project delivery; and 

• leveraging experience and evidence generated by CCS demonstration to build public 

confi dence in CCS as a feasible climate change technology. 

As part of its knowledge-sharing framework, the Global CCS Institute requires that projects 

within its support network provide a combination of reports, case studies, methodologies, papers 

and public fact sheets to share their experience and key learnings with the international CCS 

community. In addition, supported projects participate in other knowledge-sharing activities, 

such as online discussions and forums, interviews, workshops and conferences. Together, the 

Global CCS Institute’s broad knowledge-sharing approach aims to address the needs of different 

CCS stakeholders by utilising both digital and face-to-face channels for communication. The 

framework is being actively promoted to governments and funding bodies to promote consistency 

and alignment between global knowledge-sharing efforts and maximise the opportunities for 

international collaboration. 

133



Despite an emerging trend to participate in specifi c designed and facilitated knowledge-sharing 

events, it is common across jurisdictions that all publicly funded CCS demonstration projects 

submit regular progress reports, and be present at meetings, workshops and conferences to 

share information with a broad audience. 

Similarly, jurisdictions are also advocating the international harmonisation of knowledgesharing 

efforts to learn from as many sources as possible, whilst at the same time trying to 

avoid unnecessary proliferation of activities that may place an unnecessary burden on project 

proponents. 

8.5 Levels of sharing and understanding stakeholders 

Under the knowledge-sharing frameworks being developed and implemented by different 

jurisdictions, there is little delineation between knowledge, information and data – all three are 

in scope and are seen as equally valuable. Data are seen as important because they provide 

an objective basis for comparison and benchmarking, policy making and source material for 

research, but at the same time, data need careful interpretation and validation and cannot be 

released ‘as-is’ in most cases. Lessons learned, case studies and other experiential content, 

on the other hand, are also considered as key elements in the knowledge-sharing initiatives 

studied because they look to capture experience-based knowledge from the early-movers in 

CCS demonstration. 

One key issue that has the potential to affect the success of knowledge-sharing initiatives is the 

need to protect valuable intellectual property from premature or undue disclosure. In this regard, 

all jurisdictions recognise the need to foster a commercially sustainable CCS industry and have 

measures in place to allow adequate protection of commercially exploitable intellectual property. 

Typically, these measures assume a default position of extensive knowledge sharing but provide 

project proponents with the opportunity to identify instances where a valid and clear commercial 

infringement is apparent. 

The boundaries that separate ‘black-box’ and ‘grey-box’ intellectual property from sharable 

learnings and project knowledge can be diffi cult to clearly defi ne. As a result, establishing sharing 

arrangements that encourage a culture of sharing without hampering commercial interests is 

important. The breadth and depth of knowledge that can be made available for sharing with 

different audiences must be considered in a jurisdictional context to address policy needs, 

industry needs and the commercial needs of individual projects. Appreciating the different needs 

of regional initiatives, the Global CCS Institute’s knowledge-sharing framework was developed 

collaboratively to establish a core or baseline set of knowledge categories. These categories can 

be modifi ed by jurisdictions while allowing project delivery to be monitored and lessons learned to 

be gleaned against consistent parameters. The categories avoid subject areas that could confl ict 

with intellectual property rights. 

It is well accepted in most jurisdictions that information is best shared in a way that meets the 

particular needs of the various CCS stakeholders. A clear example of this approach includes the 

knowledge-sharing protocol of the European CCS Demonstration Project Network, which defi nes 

two discrete levels of knowledge: 

134


• a level where knowledge products are shared only within the project network (to accelerate 

development of the member projects and to ensure the reciprocity of sharing, thereby building 

trust); and 

• a second level in which knowledge products can be openly shared with the wider CCS 

community and the general public. 

Within this same context, needs analyses have been done in a number of jurisdictions as part of 

defi ning knowledge-sharing initiatives. The Australian Government, for example, has extensively 

consulted with a broad range of stakeholders to understand their information and knowledge 

needs. The results of their analyses suggest that the knowledge-sharing themes proposed in the 

Global CCS Institute framework provides a sound basis for sharing. However, the international 

community also notes that there is no one-size-fi ts-all model for either knowledge dissemination 

or content format, and these needs will change over time as the CCS industry matures. 

For instance, the academic community may be interested to explore new methods and tools as 

input to their educational research programs. Governments, on the other hand, may seek to learn 

from occupational health and safety data as well as financial information. Project proponents and 

the CCS industry would want to learn from the experience of developing and operating technology. 

Relevantly, stakeholder analyses undertaken in the United Kingdom identifi ed the different 

information needs as follows: 

• project developers in the United Kingdom and overseas – to provide access to the CCS 

related knowledge necessary to construct and operate CCS projects effectively and effi ciently; 

• policy makers and standards bodies – to provide information to further develop and 

appropriately regulate the industry; 

• researchers – to provide ongoing feedback and share learnings to organisations involved 

in the research, development or validation of CCS; 

• CCS supply chain – to help potential suppliers understand and prepare for future CCS 

industry; and 

• CCS fi nanciers and insurers – to enable fi nancial institutions to gain familiarity with CCS 

and become capable of supplying fi nance or insurance to a future CCS industry. 

Furthermore, the United Kingdom’s CCS Demonstration program supports the position that 

knowledge generated by projects as a result of spending public money should be made freely 

available to all. One exception to this overarching principle is legally protected intellectual 

property, which can only be made available to third parties on fair and reasonable terms. 

Some jurisdictions have indicated that knowledge-sharing programs need to be closely monitored 

and measured against impact on the drivers to track the success and value of the programs. In line 

with this notion, jurisdictions have built regular consultation processes in their knowledge-sharing 

initiatives so as to monitor the changing needs of different stakeholders. For example, the European 

CCS Demonstration Project Network has formed an Advisory Forum with representation from a wide 

variety of stakeholder groups to advise the knowledge-sharing agenda and activities of the network. 

135



8.6 Knowledge-sharing mechanisms and tools 

136 

Around the world, various knowledge-sharing mechanisms and tools have been proposed. 

Some have been put in use over the past 12-18 months. 

Alberta 

The requirements of the four funded projects in Alberta serve as the main driver behind knowledgesharing 

mechanisms. The Government of Alberta holds the position that a consistent approach 

is needed to be able to use the resulting knowledge, which means that data from various projects 

with similar technology blocks must be comparable. This requires standardised templates and 

measures for the large number of key indicators that will be reported by each project. It will require 

a level of transparency and openness that might be challenging to some groups. Agreement may be 

needed to address intellectual property issues. A common web-based technology platform should 

enable global access and utilisation of the collected data. Its design should be driven by the needs 

of the global CCS community. Quality and consistency of data across jurisdictions will be key issues 

to resolve. 

Australia 

The Australian Government Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism has detailed knowledgesharing 

arrangements for funded projects as part of the initial funding for the pre-feasibility studies. 

The Global CCS Institute knowledge-sharing framework has been used as the basis for this work, 

although not all of the possible knowledge categories were used. To date, supported projects 

have agreed to contribute to project factsheets, knowledge-sharing reports as well as providing 

knowledge-sharing personnel. The projects are receptive to knowledge sharing, but within the 

boundaries of protection of specified intellectual property. 

Canada 

CCS projects receiving funding from the Canadian Government are required to provide quarterly 

updates and presentations to the government, as well as participate in the development and 

implementation of a knowledge-sharing framework. 

The funded projects are also required to provide yearly progress reports, including, for example, 

the results of their environmental assessments, public consultations, expended funds and project 

schedule. Natural Resources Canada maintains a repository of information received, but it is for 

internal use only at this time. 

Carbon Management Canada (CMC), a federally and provincially funded national research network 

of 21 Canadian universities focused on carbon management in Canada’s fossil energy sector, may 

provide a platform for collaboration and knowledge exchange between the research community and 

academe and other stakeholders. 

European Commission 

The primary tool for knowledge sharing in the area of CCS demonstration is the European CCS 

Demonstration Project Network. The current knowledge-sharing mechanisms include a series 

of thematic workshops (with three to fi ve themes running in parallel across the workshops), a 

public website and an extranet site. Regular reports are issued from the thematic workshops. 

The knowledge-sharing activities are governed by a Network Steering Committee and an Advisory 

Forum. Project microsites will soon be released as part of the http://ccsnetwork.eu site, which


will feature each member project. The content design underpinning these microsites is based 

on the Global CCS Institute project factsheet. An electronic information and experience gathering 

form has also been developed. The aim is to capture key data and information on progress from 

each of the member projects. This will serve as a basis for public dissemination and identifi cation 

of lessons learned and good practice. 

The Netherlands 

The Dutch national research and innovation programme CATO-2 is designed to support the 

integrated development of CCS demonstration projects in the Netherlands. The CATO programme 

created the main knowledge network in the fi eld of CCS in the Netherlands, consisting of almost 

40 partners from industry, research institutes, universities and NGOs. The research agenda of the 

CATO-2 program is ‘demand driven’, which means that R&D priorities are set by government and 

industry involved in the realisation of large-scale demonstration projects. 


Although still under development and awaiting fi nalisation of the United Kingdom CCS 

Demonstration Competition, some ideas have been suggested to support knowledge sharing, 

including: 

• access to demonstration project experts; 

• technical and summary reports on relevant issues; 

• technical visits and secondments; 

• presentations and tailored seminars; and 

• placements for higher education students. 

United States 

The United States has signifi cant knowledge-sharing initiatives through NETL, which is an agency 

of the United States DoE. NETL focuses across the energy portfolio, including CCS. Information 

is shared through its corporate site www.netl.doe.gov/ as well as a collaboration and data-sharing 

site it maintains at: . 

The United States and Canada recently formalised knowledge-sharing arrangements as 

summarised in the United States-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue. This includes the Carbon 

Capture and Storage Clean Energy Technology Working Group, collaborating on areas such as 

a storage atlas, next-generation technology, injection and storage-testing and public outreach 

strategies. Knowledge sharing is also provided through the DoE’s Clean Coal Technology and 

Clean Coal Power Initiative. 

The Global CCS Institute 

The Global CCS Institute provides fact-based advocacy, project assistance and knowledge 

sharing to accelerate CCS deployment globally. 

A key part of the Institute’s role is to act as a fact-based advocate for CCS. This is done by 

providing quality information and data, helping to connect a variety of stakeholders and making 

sure that the public and those individuals that may have a negative bias against CCS are engaged 

as part of the process. The Institute’s knowledge-sharing platform and other forms of social 

media are a critical part of how the Institute will act as an advocate for CCS. 

137



The Institute has established knowledge-sharing arrangements with several CCS projects 

worldwide. In some cases, the Institute will be funding these ‘early mover’ projects at crucial 

stages of their program. In exchange, these projects will be sharing formal knowledge products 

and lessons learned that the Institute can then disseminate to all projects in a variety of forms 

to help accelerate CCS. 

In addition to the requirement of its Project Support Program, the Global CCS Institute is 

also negotiating additional resources for several demonstration projects to engage dedicated 

knowledge management expertise to capture key information from the delivery of project 

activities. Once implemented, the network of ‘embedded’ knowledge managers will facilitate 

knowledge collaboration between peer projects using both digital and face-to-face channels. 

Formal knowledge-sharing arrangements are also being set up with a number of governments. 

These channels for collaboration and dissemination include the Global CCS Institute’s state-ofthe-art, 

web-based sharing platform, which uses social media functions to support group and 

personal interactions and professional networking. The platforms are purpose-built for different 

levels of access to balance requirements for engaging the widest possible audience with privacy 

and confi dentiality requirements. The public platform is available at: www.globalccsinstitute.com. 

8.7 Challenges for knowledge sharing 

There has been significant progress during 2009-2010 in defining knowledge-sharing arrangements, 

and in particular setting up strategic frameworks. Even so, some emerging challenges affect how 

jurisdictions are implementing their programs and how projects are incorporating knowledge-sharing 

activities into their project schedules. Such challenges and additional considerations include: 

• developing appropriate metrics to assess the contribution of knowledge sharing to reducing 

costs and accelerating project delivery; 

• establishing effective contractual arrangements that maximise opportunities for sharing while 

also protecting commercial interests of the parties involved; 

• encouraging a cultural shift within each stakeholder group to maximise the uptake and use of 

web-based technologies as tools to augment the value of face-to-face models for knowledge 

sharing; and 

• aligning knowledge-sharing programs with those being delivered at global, regional, national 

and state/provincial levels to improve harmonisation between initiatives and prevent undue 

reporting burdens on project proponents. 

8.8 Conclusion 

The approaches taken during the past 18 months in CCS knowledge sharing across jurisdictions 

show a number of similarities around how programs are being set up and operated. It is notable and 

encouraging that jurisdictions recognise the need for a harmonised approach to knowledge sharing 

that supports international collaboration between projects and between different stakeholder groups. 

This call for harmonisation is partly driven by concerns that a fragmented approach to knowledge 

sharing will be drawing further on already scarce resources. There is also a fear of missing the 

opportunity for accelerating CCS deployment. 

138


In implementing their knowledge-sharing programs, jurisdictions are also facing comparable 

challenges to defi ne appropriate interfaces between the various stakeholders and to produce 

the right knowledge products for those stakeholder groups. Towards addressing these issues, 

several parties have developed dedicated websites that facilitate networking and collaboration. 

These web-based tools are being coupled with targeted face-to-face knowledge-sharing events 

that bring the relevant stakeholder groups together to develop a forward agenda for knowledge 

collaboration. 

In order to avoid fragmentation of knowledge-sharing initiatives, there is a need to connect 

regional networks focused on CCS. This requires improved coordination between initiatives 

to collaborate through focused and outcome-driven face-to-face and digital knowledge-sharing 

activities. An operational model that calls for great consistency and international knowledge 

collaboration between regional CCS demonstration initiatives has been developed as an action 

item under the Carbon Capture, Use and Storage (CCSUS) Action Group. A recommendation 

to this effect will be considered by global energy ministers at the next Clean Energy Ministerial 

meeting. 

139



PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 

Projects and governments can assist in 

creating an effective operating environment 

by involving affected stakeholders in 

collaborative decision making early on 

in the project development cycle. 

140

9 CCS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 

Productive relationships with 

key decision makers are based 

on trust and ongoing dialogue. 

Public engagement risk 

management is essential 

in establishing an effective 

operating environment. 

KEY MESSAGES 

• Effective management of public engagement is essential in delivering CCS demonstration projects. 

• Each CCS project and community is unique and requires an engagement process tailored to suit 

site-specifi c needs. Regions may have vastly different approaches to public engagement based 

on contextual, historical and cultural factors 

• Consistent themes are emerging from the limited case studies and research available, which project 

proponents should be aware of when developing public engagement approaches, including: 

– establishing effective levels of trust with local communities; 

– communicating the case for CCS with balanced information through multiple credible sources 

in an ongoing dialogue with local stakeholders; 

– ensuring that outreach activities refl ect a partnership approach involving joint decision making 

for greater collaboration; and 

– understanding the local context and identifying an effective social value proposition for local 

communities. 

141


9 CCS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT (CONTINUED) 

Public engagement is a critical area to address for the successful development of CCS projects. 

Effective engagement with community stakeholders by governments and companies is essential 

in delivering current and future CCS demonstration projects. 

As an industry, a number of projects have been delayed, altered or even halted as a result of public 

opposition. These outcomes have reinforced the need for early engagement and investment to build 

trusting, constructive relationships with stakeholders as an integral part of the overall project. 

Proponents of CCS looking to build trust with local decision-makers may also seek out and 

collaborate with existing trusted sources of information, be they experts, research institutions or 

other NGOs to ensure that the information provided to the community is fact-based, balanced 

and credible. This may be especially important for CCS as a relatively new technology application, 

where communities are not aware of all the benefi ts and potential issues. 

Each CCS project and community is unique and requires an engagement process that understands 

and responds to site-specific needs (Forbes et al. 2010). This can assist in identifying who the 

influential stakeholders are and what their needs may be in order to streamline communications 

activities and identify a relevant social value proposition in each region. 

Where issues need resolution and decisions are to be made that impact on local liveability, 

designing engagement activities involving joint decision making with those affected can assist 

with creating an effective project operating environment. 

Regions may have vastly different approaches to public engagement based on contextual, 

historical and cultural factors. Tools and processes such as a social site characterisation (Wade and 

Greenberg 2009) can guide in the understanding of local values and priorities. Multi-layered, multi 

channel approaches are required to ensure all stakeholders are adequately consulted in relation to 

each CCS project. 

One key element that has been a factor in positive project engagement is where developers are 

not just delivering community outreach against a minimum criteria set, but are actively seeking 

ways to create positive connections to the project within the local community to help enhance the 

liveability of the location economically and socially. 

Given the low levels of current comparable data available, it is diffi cult to holistically track and 

report on all the CCS public engagement activities globally. This chapter instead seeks to provide 

observations from a non-exhaustive set of case studies and examples showing a range of public 

engagement approaches implemented by CCS project developers with varying results, with the 

focus being public engagement at the project–specifi c scale. The information presented in this 

chapter has been taken from media and reports presented by the people and organisations 

acknowledged. 


This chapter will: 

• provide an overview of some of the key themes pertaining to CCS public engagement; and 

• provide a snapshot of public engagement guidelines and recent CCS project activities, 

including the approaches employed and the resulting outcomes. 

142


9.2 Key themes in CCS public engagement 

Research analysing community engagement of CCS projects is still in its early stages. Despite 

the number of actual projects, there are not many available case studies reporting on project 

achievements in this area. Recently there have been efforts to approach the comparison of 

community engagement strategies and activities of CCS projects empirically, but this is on a limited 

number of projects globally (Folland and Webb 2010). As the number of projects increase over 

time, the data gathered will help identify lessons and best practice for CCS public engagement. 

Within the currently available data, some common inter-related and co-dependent themes have 

emerged, including: 

• establishing effective levels of trust; 

• communicating the case for CCS with local stakeholders through balanced information from 

multiple credible sources; 

• creating outreach activities involving joint decision making; and 

• identifying an effective social value proposition for local communities from a deep 

understanding of local needs. 

Establishing effective levels of trust 

Research indicates that there are generally very low levels of trust between communities, 

governments and corporations globally. This scepticism tends to be more pronounced in areas of 

business seen to create signifi cant profi ts and pollution, without necessarily paying corresponding 

attention to the rights and interests of communities impacted (Sandman 2003). 

The recent environmental events which occurred in Jilin, China and in particular the oil spill 

in the Gulf of Mexico, have raised awareness of the requirements for safety, monitoring and 

rigorous processes to prevent potential failures. Furthermore, it has increased public pressure 

on governments to ensure there is diligence in the oversight and regulation for a safe, clean 

environment, and protection of local livelihoods, particularly in industrial communities. 

Project developers need to understand the factors affecting trust and take these into account 

as a fi rst step when designing plans to establish effective operating environments and assist with 

public acceptance. Building trust with key project stakeholders can help to create more open 

communication channels and ultimately reduce delays from local resistance. 

There is a range of approaches that can help facilitate this trust. One of these is where CCS 

projects provide access to multiple stakeholders holding diverse views about CCS which is 

more likely to create trust and cultivate acceptance among local communities. Information 

developed from a range of experts with varied points of view is seen as more credible due to 

its perceived objectiveness (Koukouzas 2010). Information must be relevant, valid, balanced 

and comprehensible for people to be able to make an informed decision about CCS and 

engender trust. 

143



Relevant project examples 

The CO 2 Sink research project started in April 2004 and is coordinated by the German Research 

Centre for Geosciences. The focus was to observe and analyse the effects of injecting CO 2 

into a reservoir in Ketzin, 70km west of Berlin. The research was carried out by a consortium 

of international research institutions and universities, the IEA and industry representatives. 

The project was positively received by the public in Ketzin and has faced limited opposition, 

possibly due to the scientifi c and academic background (versus private company with economic 

incentives) of the consortium behind the project, the use of key trusted locals in communicating 

project information, and the use of a range of engagement activities such as barbeques and site 

visits available to all members of the local community (Dütschke 2009). 

Communicating the case for CCS 

Public awareness and public understanding of CCS are widely accepted by project proponents 

and the research community to be generally low, although this varies on a region-by-region basis. 

Research undertaken by the global research community repeatedly indicates that there are 

both gaps in knowledge about the defi nition of CCS, as well as misconceptions about the safe 

transport and storage of CO 2 , and the role CCS will play in a broader response to climate change. 

A recent comparative research survey highlighted that, on average, around 60 per cent of people 

in six key European countries have never heard of CCS (Pietzner et al. 2010). While there is 

no substantiated evidence to suggest that raising awareness broadly would lead to improved 

outcomes, the fact that awareness is low can be both a risk and an opportunity for proponents 

to engage directly with relevant decision-makers to build understanding through balanced and 

factual information. 

The IEA and CSLF (2010) have advocated in its ‘Next Steps’ report that governments take a 

leadership role in raising awareness of CCS amongst the public, suggesting that this activity could 

help to shift the anti-fossil fuel sentiments with communities as well as environmental NGOs. 

Projects require an effective operating environment that includes communities that understand 

and accept a case for CCS. Communities will take their cues from trusted, infl uential sources who 

win this trust by presenting them with information based on a balanced set of facts. This helps 

build the credibility of the proponent and helps to reassure communities that their rights and 

interests will be respected, therefore limiting the likelihood of hostile defence reactions. 

Project proponents need to understand the level of local knowledge when developing 

communication materials, and target key messages to educate stakeholders of the broader need for 

CCS, while addressing the project impacts in their local area. Some public outreach successes have 

shown that including a technical representative from the project team that is available to answer 

questions at community meetings can often help to provide reassurance to locals – particularly 

in relation to safety concerns – and especially if they are trained or supported in communicating 

appropriately with the community using accessible and constructive language. 


One main reason cited for the positive outreach results to date within Canada is the population’s 

familiarity with the oil and gas industry. Many of the existing and proposed CCS projects are sited 

in existing fossil fuel resource communities, such as Wabamun, Swan Hills, Estevan, and the 

Fort Saskatchewan area. The population tends to be well versed on oil industry techniques and 

144


technologies, and many people make their living in occupations related to the oil, gas, and 

coal industries, which means that CCS is often seen as a potential opportunity, rather than 

a threat. Additionally, there have been many initiatives throughout Canada to help provide 

balanced information to the public and all stakeholders including websites such as CCS 101 

, which have helped educate on the factors surrounding CCS. 

A key lesson learned from Tenaska’s Trailblazer project in Texas has been that using trusted, 

credible sources of information can be helpful in delivering a successful project. The project 

team at Tenaska sought and worked with a community representative who was well respected 

and trusted by his local community. Making a choice to engage in this way can lead to greater 

understanding and earlier identifi cation of upcoming community issues, as well as a better 

acceptance of fact-based information on the project. 

Creating an engagement process involving joint decision making 

Local opposition often results when members of the community believe they have been excluded 

from the decision-making process (Wolsink 1996). Focusing efforts and resources on forging strong 

relationships and a collaborative approach can help nurture an environment of acceptance, and 

potentially reduce this negative response. 

One of the ways to help generate a positive response to project development is to establish 

trusting, respectful, and stable relationships among project developers, regulators, and local 

communities. Community engagement is affected not only by the local political and social 

dynamics, but also by the structure of the engagement process itself. 

In some countries, regulatory frameworks governing CCS development and deployment, 

including rules for community engagement, are already in place (Forbes et al. 2010). But, these 

only cover the minimum necessities and project proponents should strive to implement programs 

to win over the public by going beyond what they ‘have to do’ in order to meet local community 

expectations and requirements. 

For example, while formal approval of projects is often required by regulators, in some cases, 

there is a lesser imperative to gain agreement from local landowners and communities. However, 

a social licence to operate extends beyond formal endorsement of the project. Where community 

sentiment indicates a need to be involved in decisions, proponents should be aware of this need 

and make decisions to accommodate it or explain fairly why they have chosen not to. A failure to 

address this core choice around the level of involvement in decision making can lead to hostility 

from local communities, who, regardless of regulatory circumstances, decide for themselves 

where their involvement is crucial. 

Learnings from projects as well as recent CCS public engagement activities have highlighted the 

importance of relationship building with regulatory authority stakeholders. There have been some 

examples that indicate that a united approach between government and project proponents can 

often lead to positive outcomes from a public engagement perspective. Likewise, the Barendrecht 

case, profi led later in this chapter, is an example of what can result when industry proponents 

and government infl uencers are not aligned. 

Where there has been success it has often occurred where governments and project proponents 

are committed partners. This collaboration can provide the support framework for projects to 

succeed. 

145




The CO2CRC Otway project is a research and demonstration CO 2 storage, monitoring, and 

verifi cation project, which entered into its second stage in early 2010. The site is close to a 

network of farms and public engagement began early. Constructive community relationships 

were identifi ed as a key success factor to ongoing project acceptance. A consultation plan put 

in place in early 2005 aimed to build successful relationships with stakeholders, to inform and 

educate the community about CCS, ensure that landholders heard of the project from CO2CRC 

directly, and provide opportunities for transparent and joint communication (Ashworth et al. 

2010). This plan and subsequent implementation included a community reference group and 

a community liaison offi cer to help provide an ongoing avenue for communication between the 

community and project developer, to raise any questions or issues at regular meetings. 

In January 2010, Total inaugurated the Lacq demonstration project in south-western France. 

This was Europe’s fi rst integrated carbon capture, transportation and storage demonstration 

facility. Public engagement activities were extensive before the launch of the demonstration 

project, in particular creating alliances with decision-makers to ensure a collaborative and 

consistent approach to local community communications. While the pre-project conceptual 

studies began in 2006, public information and consultation sessions started around the same 

time as basic engineering. A key lesson learned from the Lacq project was that adequate 

resources for community engagement allowed the project proponents to make regulator 

correspondence available for public viewing. In addition, recognition of the public’s lack 

of understanding and awareness of geosciences and CCS was taken into account when 

communicating about CCS (de Marliave 2009). 

Identifying an effective local social value proposition 

Local context is often a strong factor in influencing public perception about CCS. Perception is 

affected at many different levels, including the political and historical context, and will influence 

a community’s attitude towards CCS and development more generally. In terms of community 

engagement, social site characterisation or community profiling of the proposed site should be 

conducted in order to understand and then plan an appropriate communications strategy. 

As part of this characterisation, the creation of stakeholder network, influence and issues maps 

are vital. These maps can be created for projects to understand who the key influencers in each 

community are, how they relate to and communicate with each other, and which issues drive their 

motivations. With early data such as these, stakeholder engagement specialists embedded within 

project teams can better and more efficiently design quality and targeted strategies to manage risk, 

driven by a deep understanding of community contexts. 

In addition, the insights from this social site characterisation can assist in establishing a welldefi 

ned social value proposition that addresses the needs and attitudes of the local community 

with benefi ts which project proponents can help deliver. 

Finding economic incentives and other mechanisms that benefi t the community can assist in 

community acceptance. However, it is also important to note that communities may be sceptical 

of fi nancial incentives and that money cannot buy trust or act as a proxy for constructive 

community relationships. Social value can be derived without high spend if it is agreed in 

partnership with local communities and is relevant to both the project impacts and community 

needs (Folland and Webb 2010). 

146


Research has indicated that local context can sometimes be reduced to a concern for fairness 

or a sense of exploitation. A community can sometimes feel that they are being asked to bear 

unknown risks which are not being asked of other communities, with the siting of projects in 

their local area. This could stem from many different viewpoints, including historical events, 

or perceived inequalities. These issues should be researched and taken into account when 

developing outreach plans. 

One of the current key issues facing project proponents is around the sensitivity of storage within 

a community area. Sometimes the storage site is located away from the main capture plant – 

thereby not necessarily generating the potential benefits from the development of the rest of the 

CCS infrastructure. As storage is one of the aspects of CCS that can cause concern with local 

residents (especially around future leakage), it is critical to identify relevant benefits to engender 

goodwill and reassurance. Different public engagement approaches and social value propositions 

may be required when dealing with a storage project in a local area, as opposed to a fully-integrated 

CCS project in one location. 

The importance of understanding the project’s social site characterisation is also a measure for 

a deeper understanding of local stakeholder interests and values, and it should be monitored 

over time to be able to continually review the applicability and effectiveness of public engagement 

approaches. 

Relevant project example 

PurGen is a private sector venture aiming to build a 500MW coal and capture plant in New 

Jersey and pipe CO 2 offshore for sub-seabed storage. The project is supported by academics at 

Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton universities. It was introduced to the community as having a 

potential to benefi t them. In response, the community raised concerns over the location and the 

potential for sub-seabed storage. Sectors of the community, including local unions, supported 

the project because of its potential to create jobs. As engagement proceeded, NGOs began to 

raise their concerns. For example, members of the Sierra Club, Trembley Point Alliance, and a 

long-term activist voiced their concerns regarding carbon dioxide storage and the safety of the 

technology. These groups seem to have some infl uence, as the Linden City Council rejected 

the project bid in October 2009. The project team re-engaged and returned with a revised 

proposal in January 2010 based on a deeper understanding of the local social value proposition 

and responding to the concerns raised. This revised proposal was accepted. While PurGen 

continues to receive protests from various groups opposing the project, a social value proposition 

responding directly to community requirements had a positive effect on the approvals process. 

9.3 Key public engagement example: Barendrecht 

One case study that has become well known across the CCS industry is Shell’s Barendrecht 

project, involving many of the themes mentioned in this chapter. This example is often cited. 

The Barendrecht project was one of the first CCS projects to encounter a range of engagement 

issues, and the associated learnings have helped other project proponents develop outreach 

approaches that take these into consideration. Findings from a case study around the Barendrecht 

project undertaken by the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, as part of an international 

comparison of public engagement and communication practices by CCS projects, indicates various 

areas of communication and engagement could have been addressed differently (Feenstra et al. 

2010). 

147



From a national perspective, it did not appear that the government and local/regional 

governments were aligned, creating a possible confl ict that could have played itself out in the 

public arena. In addition, local NGOs were not convinced of the technology’s safety in general 

and were generally less supportive of the Barendrecht project particularly. 

In June 2009, the Barendrecht council voted against the project, then in November 2009 the 

Netherlands’ Minister of Environment and Economic Affairs approved the project in spite of local 

opposition. However, on 5 November 2010, the government announced the project’s cancellation 

citing a lack of local support as the reason behind the decision. 

Those opposed to the project argued that it was the unproven aspect of the technology and the 

fact that the Barendrecht project was the fi rst of its kind which went against the project in terms 

of local acceptance, due mainly to it being perceived as a test or an experiment. Though partially 

government funded, the project was at all times viewed to be a commercial venture rather 

than a research opportunity to determine the validity of the technology for future commercial 

application. There appeared to have been little opportunity for the public and other stakeholders 

to access expert information on the technology through the project proponents. 

It seems that communication planning was not thoroughly developed to incorporate public 

perception, and formal public communications and engagement that occurred were generally 

triggered after opposition became apparent. A website was established along with fact sheets and 

an information centre opened in the district some 12 months after the project’s announcement. 

A local community liaison group was not initially established and the communication tended to 

be one-way in the form of press releases and statements issued on the website. 

More detailed analysis on the Barendrecht project and case study can be found in Feenstra 

el al. (2010). 

9.4 Public engagement guideline resources 

As a result of the growing focus and recognition of the importance of public engagement to the 

success of CCS projects, there is an increasing number of references and research to assist project 

proponents in planning successful public engagement activities. This chapter only touches on a few 

of these key resources, but other references exist globally. 

The World Resources Institute (WRI) recently released an authoritative set of Guidelines for 

Community Engagement in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage Projects (Forbes et 

al. 2010). These guidelines, mentioned throughout this document, assist a variety of stakeholders 

involved with CCS including the three main identifi ed parties: 

• regulators; 

• project developers; and 

• local decision makers. 

The nature of community engagement is going to vary according to the community’s experience, 

values, priorities and expectations and must be treated on a case-by-case basis. 

148


These guidelines focus on providing recommendations for creating a culture of effective, two-way 

community engagement around CCS projects. They discuss many different facets of CCS public 

engagement and provide principles on: 

• understanding the local community context; 

• exchanging information about the project; 

• identifying the appropriate level of engagement; 

• discussing potential impacts of the project; and 

• continuing engagement throughout the project lifecycle. 

The guidelines have made an effort to focus on general, transferable principles for community 

engagement and participation, as opposed to any specifi c existing regulatory scheme. 

In 2009, the United States DoE released a manual, Best Practices for Public Outreach and 

Education for Carbon Storage Projects (DOE, NETL 2009), which is intended to assist project 

developers in understanding and applying best outreach practices for siting and operating CO 2 

storage projects. The manual provides practical, experience-based guidance on designing and 

conducting effective public outreach activities. 

The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has also 

undertaken extensive work in this area, in partnership with the global social research network and 

has developed a draft ’Communication/Engagement Toolkit for CCS Projects’, commissioned by the 

Global CCS Institute. This toolkit is evolving. It is intended to assist in the design and management 

of communication and engagement activities for individual CCS projects. It is anticipated that the 

updated toolkit will be available as a reference for interested stakeholders in the first half of 2011. 

Furthermore, CSIRO undertook an international study comparing public communication and 

outreach practices associated with large-scale CCS projects. The study focused on a direct 

comparison between five case studies of specific CCS projects and their associated communication 

and outreach activities. An overview of findings and the detailed case studies is available at: 

. 

Project proponents should be aware of the tools and guidelines available to help plan, implement, 

manage and measure their public engagement activities. As the CCS industry evolves, so too 

will approaches to public engagement, including optimised messaging around the technology, 

benefi ts and potential impacts, as well as the different factors that need to be understood to aid 

the successful deployment of CCS projects. 

9.5 Snapshot of public engagement CCS case studies 

Community engagement is not the only factor contributing to the success or failure of any given 

CCS project, but it has proven crucial for a number of projects. Table 17, adapted from the 

WRI community engagement guidelines document (Forbes et al. 2010), summarises public 

engagement approaches and project outcomes from some key CCS case studies. 

149



The case studies demonstrate that while some common strategies exist, and are repeatedly 

emerging as contributing to success in CCS public engagement, there is not one holistic set 

of activities that are relevant and applicable for each project. Each project requires a tailored 

approach based on specifi c community attributes and needs in different regions. The varying 

project outcomes also highlights that early engagement and continuous monitoring of activities 

is required throughout the project lifecycle, as community sentiment and other factors can shift 

over time, potentially requiring strategy adaptation. 


PROJECT 

LEADER CASE STUDY 

AUTHOR 

PERSPECTIVE 

PROJECT 

TYPE 

KEY ENGAGEMENT 

TOOLS USED 

PROJECT OUTCOME 

Shell 

Barendrecht 

(Netherlands) 

Independent 

observer 

CCS at an 

oil refinery 

(0.3Mtpa CO 2) 

• Formal hearings 

as part of impact 

assessments 

• Information centre 

at shopping mall 

one year after project 

announcement 

Project cancelled by 

the Government due 

to extensive delays and 

lack of local support. 

• Websites and 

informational flyers 

• Personal visits by 

national ministers 

Battelle, Big 

Sky Carbon 

Sequestration 

Partnership 

(BSCSP) 

Wallula Project 

(United States) developer 

CCS research 

at a paper mill 

• Interviews and 

focus groups 

• Communications 

about project made 

publicly available 

• Site tours for public 

Initial community 

resistance; project 

was reconfigured and 

moved to a new site 

where local community 

supports project. 

FutureGen 

and DoE 

FutureGen National 

(United States) project 

developer, 

local project 

team, and 

community 

representative 

Researchoriented 

IGCC 

with CCS 

(1Mtpa CO 2) 

• Economic 

development 

perspective 

emphasised 

• Educational 

demonstrations 

and meetings with 

local residents 

Strong community 

support for hosting 

the original project; 

later rejection due to 

project’s redesign, 

reducing the perceived 

benefit for the local 

community. 

• Public hearings 

C02CRC 

Otway 

(Australia) 

Project 

developer 

Research-scale 

injection 

(65KT to date) 

• Formal social science Project supported by 

assessment and twoway 

consultation 

local community. 

plan 

• Formed a community 

reference group 

• Project has a 

community liaison 

150



PROJECT 

LEADER 

Jamestown, 

New York, 

Board of Public 

Utilities (JBPU) 

BP Alternative 

Energy and 

Mission Energy 

Total 

German 

Research 

Centre for 

Geosciences 

and 

Verbundnetz 

Gas 

CASE STUDY 

AUTHOR 

PERSPECTIVE 

Jamestown Community 

(United States) opposition 

Carson Project 

(United States) developer 

Lacq 

(France) 

CO 2Sink Ketzin 

(Germany) 

Project 

implementer 

Project 

implementer 

PROJECT 

TYPE 

50MW new 

coal plant with 

CCS research 

500MW IGCC 

with CCS 

(2Mtpa CO 2) 


demonstration 

with 

oxycombustion 

(120,000 

tonnes CO 2 

per 2 yrs) 

Research-scale 

injection 

KEY ENGAGEMENT 

TOOLS USED 

• Scoping meetings 

• Informational 

community 

meetings 

• Workshops on CCS 

• Media attention 

• Briefings with state 

and local officials 

• Briefings for key 

community groups 

• Emphasis on 

project benefits 

• Early briefings 

with government 

regulators 

• Public consultation 

• Site visits 

• Individual meetings 

with neighbours 

and letters 

• Municipality 

workshop 

• Public inquiry 

• Public presentations 

• Internet site 

• Site tours 

PROJECT OUTCOME 

Strong opposition to 

project remains while 

developers continue 

to seek full financing. 

Project developer did 

not proceed with this 

project, and is instead 

looking at a similar 

project in another 

location. 

Plant began operations 

in January 2010. 

Project supported 

by local community. 

24 

Sourced and adapted from WRI CCS and Community Engagement: Guidelines for Community Engagement in Carbon Dioxide Capture, 

Transport, and Storage Projects (Forbes et al. 2010). 

151


APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A COUNTRY SUMMARY OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS 

AND PUBLIC FUNDING AWARDED TO CCS PROJECTS 153 

APPENDIX B THE ASSET LIFECYCLE MODEL 171 

APPENDIX C TABLES 173 

APPENDIX D REFERENCES 196 

152

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A 

COUNTRY SUMMARY OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS 

AND PUBLIC FUNDING AWARDED TO CCS PROJECTS 

Australia 

Figure A-1a Australian funding program summary – Federal funding 

US$bn 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 

CCS Flagships Program 

National Low Emissions Coal Initiative 

Low Emissions Technology Development Fund 

CO2CRC 

Asia Pacific Partnership 

Allocated 

Unallocated 

Figure A-1b Australian funding program summary – State funding 

US$bn 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 

CCS Flagships Program 

Clean Coal Technologies Fund (Queensland) 

Energy Technology Innovation Strategy (Victoria) 

Clean Coal Fund (New South Wales) 

Coal Industry Development (Western Australia) 

Allocated 

Unallocated 

The Federal Australian Government has initiated a number of funding programs to support the deployment 

of low emission fossil fuel generation projects, including for CCS. This includes early but signifi cant funding 

announced in 2006, mostly directed at pilot projects and R&D activities, such as AU$330 million (US$322) 

million for the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund and more than AU$385 million (US$377 

million) for the National Low Emissions Coal Initiative. From those funds, approximately AU$480 million in total 

(US$470 million) was allocated to CCS projects. 

In 2009, AU$1.9 billion (US$1.86 billion) was subsequently announced by the Australian Government for a 

CCS Flagships Program aimed at supporting two to four large-scale integrated CCS projects. State and territory 

governments were responsible for nominating eligible projects within their boundaries. Four projects were 

short-listed for pre-feasibility studies in December 2009: 

• Victorian CarbonNet (Victoria); 

• Collie Hub Project (Western Australia); 

153


APPENDICES (CONTINUED) 

• Wandoan Project (Queensland); and 

• ZeroGen 25 (Queensland). 

Funds from the CCS Flagships Program are expected to contribute to approximately one third of the successful 

projects’ costs. This Commonwealth funding is expected to be matched by state governments, with the remainder 

to be funded through industry, thus leveraging up to AU$3.5 billion (US$3 billion) in possible additional support. 

State governments, in particular Queensland and Victoria, are taking a coordinated approach to support 

those projects in contention under the CCS Flagships Program. The Queensland Government is investing in 

a portfolio of low emission coal projects as well as projects focused on assessing storage capacity. Under the 

AU$300 million (US$294 million) Queensland Clean Coal Technologies Fund, only 43 per cent of the funds 

have been allocated; the remainder of the funds have been provisioned to support the Queensland winner, 

if any, of funds under the Federal CCS Flagships Program. 

The State Government of Victoria has initiated a number of funding programs to support low emission 

technologies, including CCS, under its Energy Technology Innovation Strategy (ETIS). In 2005, the fi rst round 

of the program made AU$187 million (US$183 million) available in funding with AU$117 million (US$115 

million) allocated to carbon capture and storage or IDGCC projects. In 2008, an additional AU$110 million 

(US$108 million) fund was provisioned to support large-scale demonstration CCS projects in Victoria. 

An overwhelming majority (more than 80 per cent) of all government funds allocated to large-scale CCS 

demonstration projects in Australia were allocated to power generation projects, reflecting the limited number 

of CCS projects being developed in other industries. However, compared to global figures, the gas processing 

industry is over-represented in Australia. Close to 16 per cent of all funds allocated to large-scale demonstration 

projects in that country were allocated to the Gorgon Project in Western Australia. 26 A wide range of carbon 

capture technologies are being supported through their demonstration stage, although projects using precombustion 

capture technologies received around 64 per cent of the funds allocated to large-scale projects. 

More than 60 per cent of the funds allocated to large-scale demonstration projects in Australia have been 

directed towards projects intending to store CO 2 in deep saline aquifers. It is to be noted that around 35 per cent 

of allocated funds were granted to projects that are yet to select – or confirm the selection of – a storage site. 

A significant portion of the funding allocated to these projects will be used for site characterisation or confirming 

the suitability of pre-selected sites for permanent CO 2 sequestration. Other storage options being explored at a 

smaller scale have also benefited from the Australian government’s financial support. 27 

25 

The state government of Queensland announced in December 2010 that the ZeroGen project was reconfigured, and is no longer considered a large-scale 

CCS demonstration project. 

26 

The Gorgon Project is under construction after a final investment decision was made in September 2009. 

27 

For example: funding has been awarded to CO2CRC’s Otway R&D Project to investigate storage in depleted oil and gas fields, while Calera has received 

both state and federal funds for the pilot-scale CO 2 mineralisation unit it intends to develop in Victoria. 

154

APPENDICES 

Figure A-2 Public funding committed to large-scale demonstration projects in Australia 

(a) by industry 

US$bn 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 


Gas processing (LNG) 

Various 

(b) by capture technology 

US$bn 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 


Oxyfuel 



Various facilities 

(c) by storage type 

US$bn 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 


Storage assessment 

Not specified/TBD 

155



Canada 

Figure A-3a Canadian funding program summary – Federal funding 

US$bn 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 

Clean energy fund 

ecoEnergy technology initiative 

IEA Weyburn MMV project 

Carbon management Canada 

Energy research and development 

Sustainable development technology Canada 

CO 2 capture and storage incentive program 

ISEEE 

Nova Scotia storage assessment 

IPAC – CO 2 

Allocated 

Unallocated 

Figure A-3b Canadian funding program summary – Provincial funding 

US$bn 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 

Alberta 

CCS Fund 

Energy Research Institute 

Royalty Credit Program 

ecoTrust Grant Program 

CCEMF 

Direct Grants (1 project) 

Saskatchewan 

Direct Grants (4 projects) 

Royalty Credits 

IPAC-CO 2 

Allocated 

Unallocated 

Since 2005, Canada has committed in excess of US$3 billion in provincial and federal government public 

fi nancial support to CCS research, pilot, and demonstration projects. The large majority, US$2.9 billion, is for 

programs providing capital grants (in some cases, combined with operating subsidies) to mostly large-scale 

demonstration projects. 

These commitments include CAD$2 billion (US$1.98 billion) by the Alberta Government for a CCS Fund that 

was established specifi cally for demonstrating CCS on a large-scale, which when announced in 2008 had the 

goal of capturing and storing up to 5 million tonnes per annum of CO 2 by 2015. Federal government initiatives 

such as the CAD$650 million (US$643 million) Clean Energy Fund were created in part to partner with the 

provinces, such as Alberta but also Saskatchewan and British Columbia, in providing fi nancial support to a 

common set of projects. 

156

APPENDICES 

As mentioned above, among the countries making major public fi nancial commitments to CCS, Canada is 

among the leaders in terms of having allocated 93 per cent of its program commitments to specifi c projects 

(Figure B-3). This includes US$2.8 billion to seven large-scale demonstration projects. Four of these projects 

are proceeding in the Province of Alberta, two are in Saskatchewan, including support for the operational 

Weyburn-Midale EOR/CCS project, and one is in British Columbia. 

Most of the public fi nancial support allocated to large-scale CCS demonstration projects in Canada was 

awarded to four projects being developed in Alberta, with a total of US$2.5 billion allocated to Shell’s Quest 

CCS Project, TransAlta’s Project Pioneer, Enhance Energy’s Alberta Carbon Trunk Line and the Swan Hills 

ISCG/Sagitawah Power Project. An additional CDN$240 million in federal funding was allocated to the 

SaskPower Boundary Dam demonstration project in Saskatchewan. 

Much lesser amounts of funding have been allocated for measuring, monitoring, and verifi cation activities 

at the Weyburn-Midale EOR and CCS project, and for initial engineering studies into capturing and storing 

CO 2 from a gas processing plant in British Columbia. 

By industry sector, support to large-scale demonstration projects is mostly split between the oil and fertiliser 

and power generation sectors (Figure B-4a). This includes funding for projects that capture CO 2 at two oil 

sands upgraders and one fertiliser plant in Alberta, two post-combustion capture based projects at coal-fi red 

power plants in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and one project in Alberta based on cleaning up syngas after 

underground coal gasifi cation for use at an adjacent power plant. 

Most demonstration projects that are receiving signifi cant fi nancial support from governments are also relying 

on revenues from undertaking CO 2 storage in conjunction with EOR (Figure B-4b). Of the major large-scale 

integrated demonstration projects, fi ve are based on EOR, and only two are based on storage in deep saline 

formations. 

Figure A-4 Public funding committed to large-scale demonstration projects in Canada 

(a) by industry 

US$bn 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 

Oil & fertiliser 


Coal gasification 


(b) by storage 

US$bn 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 

EOR 


TBD/not specified 

157




Figure A-5 European Union funding program summary 

US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 

NER300 decision 

European energy programme for recovery 

Allocated 

Unallocated 

The European Commission has initiated two major CCS funding programs that direct support to large-scale 

projects. In aggregate, the European Union has made available around €3.3 billion (US$4.4 billion) for 

CCS projects. 28 Selection for the fi rst program, the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR), was 

completed in December 2009, granting a total of €1 billion (US$1.3 billion) in funding to six CCS projects. 

The EEPR was announced in response to the global fi nancial crisis. The aim was to contribute to the economic 

recovery of the European Union while securing energy supply and reducing greenhouse gases. Funding under 

the EEPR could cover up to 80 per cent of the eligible cost of the project for the additional CCS component. 

Projects selected under the EEPR had to meet the following criteria: 

• capture of at least 80 per cent of projected CO 2 emissions; 

• plan to be operational by 2015; 

• transport and safe geologic storage of CO 2 underground; 

• minimum output of 250MW for power generation facilities; and 

• not receiving any additional funding from the European Commission, with the exception of the NER300. 

The six CCS projects selected to enter into negotiations under the EEPR are: Jänschwalde (Germany), 

Porto-Tolle (Italy), ROAD Project (Netherlands), Belchatow (Poland), Compostilla (Spain) and Hatfi eld 29 

(United Kingdom). With the exception of Porto-Tolle, which is set to receive €100 million (US$133 million), 

each selected CCS project was allocated €180 million (US$239 million). 

All projects selected under the EEPR are in the power generation industry and, at this stage, none intends 

to re-use the CO 2 for EOR or other purposes. 

28 

The specifi c amount to be awarded under the NER300 Decision is still fl uctuating due to variations in carbon prices. 

29 

Powerfuel Plc, owner of the Hatfi eld project, was placed into administrative receivership in early December 2010. 

158

APPENDICES 

Figure A-6 Public funding committed to large-scale demonstration projects in the European Union 

(a) by capture technology 

US$bn 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 

Coal post-combustion 

CFBC Plant 

IGCC 

Oxyfuel & post-combustion 

(b) by storage type 

US$bn 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 


Depleted oil/gas fields 

The second program, the NER300 Decision, is a program to fund CCS and renewable energy projects 

through the monetisation of 300 million CO 2 emissions allowances. It was fi rst announced in 2008, then 

confi rmed in February 2010. The total expected value of the NER300 is currently estimated at around 

€4.7 billion (US$6.2 billion), 30 with an expected €2.3 billion (US$3.1 billion) 31 to be allocated to CCS 

projects under the program. 

All 300 million NER allowances will be sold in 2011, and around two thirds of the proceeds will fund a 

fi rst tranche of up to eight large-scale CCS projects and 34 renewable energy projects. Successful projects 

are expected to be announced in the fi rst quarter of 2012. The remainder will fund projects selected in a 

subsequent call, for which details have not yet been disclosed. However, it is intended that all NER300 

funding must be committed by the end of 2013. 

Member states are responsible for coordinating the selection of up to three eligible CCS or renewable energy 

projects within their national boundaries for NER300 funding. They are also responsible for transmitting 

submissions to the European Commission. It is expected that NER300 funding should be matched jointly 

by member states and industry, though there is no formal requirement to do so. 

Projects selected under EEPR are allowed to apply for NER300 funding, however any funding received under 

the EEPR will be subtracted from the funding awarded under the NER300 Decision. There is a high probability 

that some of the projects selected under the NER300 will have already been granted significant funding through 

EEPR, thus increasing their chances of reaching full-scale operation. NER300 funding will provide up to 50 per 

cent of a project’s eligible costs, while no individual project will be financed with more than 45 million allowances 

(15 per cent of the total funds). At the current estimated value for the NER300, this equates to a maximum of 

€0.7 billion (US$0.9 billion) for a single project. 

30 

This assumes a carbon price of €15 (US$20) per tonne when the allowances are auctioned. 

31 

Assuming that around 65 per cent of all NER300 funding will be allocated to CCS projects. 

159



Japan 

Figure A-7 Japanese funding program summary 

US$bn 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 

Japan CCS Company (JCCS) 

Monitoring simulation 

Callide Oxyfuel Project 

EAGLE 

The Japanese Government has committed extensive support to the development of carbon capture 

technologies through four main projects, with a particular focus on oxyfuel, but also on advanced capture 

technologies such as membranes. 

Another key element within their overall programs is the allocation of around US$208 million in funding to the 

Japan CCS Company (JCCS) to support the development of the Tomakomai project, which intends to store CO 2 

captured from an iron and steel plant in an offshore saline aquifer. Japan is also actively involved in the Australian 

Callide Oxyfuel Project, towards which it has contributed a total of AU$33 million (US$32 million). 


Figure A-8 Republic of Korea funding program summary 

US$bn 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 

CCS test program 

In 2009, the Government of South Korea announced the launch of a CCS Test Program, establishing a 

consortium with the purpose of building a 500MW power plant with CCS by 2015. 

To support this endeavour, a total of US$1.6 billion in funding has been made available, both from government 

(40 per cent) and private industries (60 per cent). The funds will be used to support research, development 

and deployment activities for the proposed project. Additionally, Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) 

has announced that it intends to spend a further US$1.1 billion from its own funds to develop clean coal 

technologies, including CCS. 

160

APPENDICES 

Norway 

Figure A-9 Norwegian funding program summary 

US$bn 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 

Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM) 

Mongstad full-scale project 

CLIMIT 

Near Zero Emission Coal project (NZEC) 

The Norwegian Government has been active in providing fi nancial incentives that encourage carbon capture 

technologies, with the introduction of a carbon tax as early as 1998. The carbon tax is widely recognised for 

having incentivised CO 2 storage as part of the Sleipner Project. 32 

Norway, which has been an early advocate of CCS technology in international forums such as the UNFCCC, 

is the chair of the Government Group of European Union Zero Emissions Platform (ZEP). It is also heavily 

involved in R&D activities and international consortia pertaining to carbon capture and storage, such as the 

CLIMIT program (over US$50 million committed in 2009-2010) or the European Union-China Near Zero 

Emission Coal project (NZEC). 

In 2007, the Norwegian Government established the state-owned company Gassnova SF, with the mandate 

to develop full-scale CCS at the currently operating Mongstad and Kårstø gas-fi red power plants. More than 

NOK6.2 billion (US$1 billion) in direct government funding has been granted to support the development of 

CCS activities at these plants since 2005. In November 2009, the government of Norway decided to halt the 

procurement process for the Kårstø project – the project would not be progressed further before the gas-fi red 

power plant’s operational pattern became clearer. By contrast, the European Carbon Dioxide Test Centre 

Mongstad (TCM) in Norway is currently under construction and due for operation in the fi rst quarter of 2012. 

The fi nal investment decision for the full-scale CCS demonstration plant at Mongstad is to be made in 2014, 

in consultation with the Norwegian Parliament. While the Norwegian government is a major sponsor of the 

Mongstad project, it has also successfully sought the participation of industry, including Statoil, Shell and 

the South African company Sasol. The Government will present a proposition for investment decision for the 

Parliament in 2014. 

The Norwegian national budget for 2010 provided around US$120 million to the Mongstad full-scale CCS 

project and US$300 million to the Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM). The national budget for 2011 

provisioned an additional US$120 million for the full-scale project and US$146 million for the TCM. 

32 

See case study in 2009 Strategic Analysis, Report 3: Policies and Legislation Framing Carbon Capture and Storage Globally. 

161




Figure A-10 United Kingdom funding program summary 

US$bn 0 2 4 6 8 10 

CCS demonstration competition (Round II) – CCS electricity levy 

CCS demonstration competition (Round I) 

Energy Technologies Institute 

Allocated 

Unallocated 

The Government of the United Kingdom is currently in the process of selecting a fi rst project under its CCS 

Demonstration Competition, while a second funding selection process for three additional CCS demonstration 

projects is being designed, after a market sounding exercise was completed in November 2010. 

The Energy White Paper released in 2007 under the title ‘Meeting the Energy Challenge’, which set out the 

United Kingdom Government’s international and domestic energy strategy, included carbon capture and 

storage technologies. It also stated the government’s ambition to place the United Kingdom as a market leader 

for this technology and for transfer to developing nations. The commitment to demonstrating CCS technologies 

at scale in the United Kingdom, including the second phase of the CCS Demonstration Competition, has been 

reaffi rmed since the change of government in 2010 under the Coalition Agreement. 

The CCS Demonstration Competition for the first project was announced in the 2007 national budget, and launched 

in November 2007. Additional funds were allocated in the 2009 budget and through the Energy Act of 2009. 

The criteria for the competition stipulate that the selected project should: 

• demonstrate post-combustion capture technology on a coal-fi red power station; 

• store the CO 2 offshore in geological storage sites; 

• be operational by 2014; and 

• capture 90 per cent of CO 2 produced by the equivalent of 300MW generating capacity. 

In addition, project proponents were expected in their submission to include proposals for knowledge sharing 

and know-how transfer to third parties. 

The process for selecting the fi nal competition winner, from a fi eld of nine, is nearing completion. An initial 

round of funding was awarded to the two remaining entrants, Scottish Power’s Longannet Power Station and 

E.ON Kingsnorth, to support FEED studies that will enable the bidders to further their designs before a fi nal 

selection is made. In October 2010, E.ON pulled out from the competition after it decided that current 10-year 

projections of demand for base load electricity in the county of Kent did not justify the building of a new power 

plant in that region. 

The Energy Bill of 2010 provides the mechanism and means by which the Government of the United Kingdom 

will fund an additional three CCS projects under the second phase of the CCS Demonstration Competition. 

Projects selected under the current CCS Demonstration Competition, including the winner, may be supported 

through the second phase. Funds for this second phase will be raised through the imposition of a levy on 

electricity suppliers – the United Kingdom would then become the fi rst country to implement a CCS levy. A 

market sounding process is currently being undertaken by the Department of Energy and Climate Change 

(DECC) to test the market and help establish the parameters of the second phase of the funding program. 

162

APPENDICES 

United States 

Figure A-11 United States funding program summary 

US$bn 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 

Power sector & industrial gasification tax credits 

Clean coal power initiative II & III 

Industrial carbon capture and storage 

FutureGen project 

Carbon dioxide sequestration credit 

Office of fossil energy R&D 

Regional carbon sequestration partnerships 

Geologic sequestration site characterisation 

CO 2 sequestration training and research 

FEED study grants (Illinois) 

Allocated 

Unallocated 

The United States currently leads the world in providing public fi nancial support to CCS projects. Since 2005, 

the federal government alone has committed close to US$9 billion in programs that provide direct support to 

CCS. In addition, the United States DoE was authorised in 2005 to provide upwards of US$6 billion in loan 

guarantees to commercial-scale coal power and gasifi cation projects that incorporate CCS or other emissions 

reduction technologies. 

Several state governments have also enacted programs that include public fi nancial support for clean 

energy technologies such as CCS, often on top of broader policies and legislation aimed at encouraging its 

development. For example, the government of Illinois has allocated US$30.5 million to three FEED studies, 

while Texas has made available tax credits. 

In aggregate, 16 large-scale CCS demonstration projects have been granted signifi cant federal funding 

(each more than US$100 million) to support their development, and a further eight projects have been granted 

smaller amounts (between US$0.5 million and US$3 million). In August 2010, the Report of the Interagency 

Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage recommended that up to ten large-scale demonstration CCS 

projects be advanced by 2016, strongly supported by federal funding. 

The US$9 billion in federal fi nancial support is evenly split between direct capital and operating grants, and 

tax credits for CCS projects (Figure B-12). This relatively high weighting on tax credits differentiates the United 

States from all other countries, which tend to rely more on non-tax mechanisms. 

While most of the financial support announced thus far is input-based, US$1 billion has been committed to the 

Carbon Sequestration Tax Credit, a performance-based tax credit program that will provide US$10-20 per tonne 

of CO 2 injected. 

163



Figure A-12 Public funding committed to CCS in the United States 

US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Grants 

Tax credits 

Capital and operating grants 

Performance tax credits 

Investment tax credits 

Most of the grant funding committed is sourced from the federal government’s main economic stimulus package 

in 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which includes almost US$4 billion in funding 

for CCS. Two major programs that received significant funding under this package are the Department of Energy’s 

Clean Coal Power Initiative (Round III), Industrial CCS Program, and FutureGen 2.0 (see Figure B-11). 

Ninety-fi ve per cent of all federal grant funding committed to CCS has been allocated (though not necessarily 

transferred) to specifi c projects. This compares to only 43 per cent of federal tax incentives that have been 

allocated to specifi c projects, even though these tax credits were announced prior to the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act 2009. Without new appropriations from Congress, there is relatively little direct funding 

remaining in capital or operating grant programs for supporting additional projects, particularly for advancing 

costly large-scale demonstrations past initial feasibility studies. 

Most of the government funds allocated to CCS projects since 2005 were allocated to large-scale demonstration 

projects (around US$5.2 billion, or 85 per cent). By contrast, less than US$1 billion was awarded to R&D and 

smaller-scale pilot projects. As with programs in most countries, this reflects the capital intensity of demonstration 

projects and their current lack of market incentives. Distribution across different types of demonstration projects 

is similar to the global trend when it comes to industry, with a concentration of financial support for coal-fired 

power generation, but also significant support for CCS in other industrial sectors such as synthetic gas and 

hydrogen production. 

The United States differs from the global trend, particularly compared to Europe, when it comes to the 

distribution of fi nancial support to large-scale demonstrations across capture technology and storage types. 

Sixty per cent of fi nancial support was allocated to projects using pre-combustion capture combined with 

gasifi cation technologies, both for IGCC plants and other industrial gasifi cation processes. Twenty per cent 

was allocated to oxyfuel capture, refl ecting the strong fi nancial commitment to support FutureGen 2.0. 

Thirteen per cent went to large-scale demonstration based on post-combustion capture. 

Regarding CO 2 storage, a much larger share of fi nancial support (60 per cent) compared to the global 

average is going to CCS projects that are being done in conjunction with the benefi cial reuse of CO 2 for EOR. 

As discussed elsewhere in this report, this refl ects an established CO 2 -based EOR industry in the United 

States, as well as opportunities for growth and the inclusion of permanent CO 2 storage through adequate 

site assessment, monitoring and reporting. 

164

APPENDICES 

Figure A-13 Public funding committed to large-scale demonstration CCS projects in the United States 33 

(a) by industry 34 

US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5 


Coal gasification 

Oil & fertiliser 

Biofuels 

(b) by capture technology 

US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5 


Oxyfuel 



(c) by facility for power generation projects 

US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5 

IGCC 

Oxyfuel 

Coal post-combustion 

(d) by storage type 35 

US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5 

EOR 

Deep saline 

Combination 

TBD/Not specified 

33 

Note that the following figures do not include loan guarantees and low cost loans. 

34 

Not included in this figure are US$1.6 million in funding for industrial applications (cement production and pulp and paper) and US$6 million for hub 

projects collecting CO 2 from various industries. 

35 

Additionally, US$500,000 in funding was provisioned for a project intending to store CO 2 in basalt formations (Battelle Boise White Paper Mill). 

165



Table A-1 Public funding awarded to large-scale projects in the power sector 

AUSTRALIA 

PROJECT 

FUNDING 

(US$M) 

VOL. CO 2 

(Mtpa) 

Pre-combustion capture 

Wandoan Power 22.7 2.5 

CCS Flagships 15.3 

Queensland Clean Coal Technology Fund 7.4 

ZeroGen 36 146.9 2 


Queensland Clean Coal Technology Fund 100.4 


CarbonNet 197.7 3.3 


Low Emission Technology Demonstration Fund – HRL Ltd 98.0 

Energy technology Innovation Strategy (Victoria) – HRL Ltd 52.4 

Energy technology Innovation Strategy (Victoria) – Loy Yang A 0.9 

Energy technology Innovation Strategy (Victoria) – TruEnergy IGCC 1.9 

Energy technology Innovation Strategy (Victoria) – Lassie 18.6 

The Collie Hub 10.3 7.5 


Coal Industry Development (Western Australia) 9.8 

CANADA 

PROJECT 

FUNDING 

(US$M) 

VOL. CO 2 

(Mtpa) 


Swan Hills 281.8 1.4 

Alberta CCS Fund 281.8 

Post-combustion capture 

SaskPower Boundary Dam 3 286.7 1 

Federal subsidy 237.3 

Provincial subsidy (Saskatchewan) 49.4 

TransAlta’s Project Pioneer 769.6 1 

Alberta ecoTrust Grant Program 4.9 


Federal Clean Energy Fund 312.0 

Federal ecoEnergy Technology Initiative 26.7 

36 

The state government of Queensland announced in December 2010 that the ZeroGen project was reconfigured, and is no longer considered a large-scale 

CCS demonstration project. 

166

APPENDICES 

EUROPE 

PROJECT 

FUNDING 

(US$M) 

VOL. CO 2 

(Mtpa) 


Hatfield (United Kingdom) 238.7 5 

European Energy Programme for Recovery 238.7 

Oxyfuel 

The Compostilla Project (Spain) 238.7 1.6 


Jänschwalde (Germany) 238.7 1.7 



Belchatow (Poland) 238.7 1.8 


Kårstø 37 (Norway) 122.3 1 

Subsidy from 2008 Norwegian Budget 27.5 


Kingsnorth Demo Plant 38 (United Kingdom) 71.1 2 

CCS Demonstration competition – Round 1 71.1 

Longannet Power Station Scottish Power (United Kingdom) 71.1 2 

CCS Demonstration competition – Round 1 71.1 

Mongstad CCS (Norway) 247.1 1 

Subsidy from 2010 Norwegian Budget 126.5 


Porto Tolle (Italy) 132.6 1 


ROAD (Netherlands) 437.6 1.1 


Subsidy from the Government of the Netherlands 198.9 

REPUBLIC OF KOREA 

PROJECT 

FUNDING 

(US$M) 

VOL. CO 2 

(Mtpa) 


KOR-CCS-1 and -2 828 2 

Direct government subsidy 828.0 

37 

In May 2009, the Norwegian Government announced that the procurement process for the Kårstø project would be halted until the operational pattern of 

the plant becomes clearer. 

38 

Final investment decision for the Kingsnorth project was postponed in October 2009, due to falling energy demand which pushes back the need for a new 

power plant in South East England to 2016 or later. 

167



UNITED STATES 

PROJECT 

FUNDING 

(US$M) 

VOL. CO 2 

(Mtpa) 


Conoco Phillips Sweeny Gasification 3.0 3 

Federal Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage 3.0 

Good Spring IGCC 2.7 1 


Hydrogen Energy International California (HECA) 308.0 2 

Federal Clean Coal Power Initiative – III 308.0 

Southern Company IGCC Project 705.0 2.5 

Federal Clean Coal Power Initiative – II 293.0 

Federal Power Sector and Industrial Gasification Tax Credits 412.0 

Texas Clean Energy Project (NowGen) 663.4 2.7 



Taylorville IGCC 435.0 1.9 

Illinois FEED Grants 18.0 



AEP Mountaineer 235-MWe CO 2 Capture 334 1.5 



Antelope Valley Station 39 100 1 


Oxyfuel 

FutureGen 2.0 1,000.0 1 

Federal FutureGen 2.0 Program 1,000.0 

39 

Basin Electric decided to put the Antelope Valley Station project on hold in December 2010, due to regulatory uncertainty and high costs revealed by the 

results of an initial FEED study. 

168

APPENDICES 

Table A-2 Public funding awarded to industrial, large-scale CCS demonstration projects 

AUSTRALIA 

PROJECT 

INDUSTRY 

FUNDING 

(US$M) 

VOL. CO 2 

(Mtpa) 


Gorgon Project LNG processing 58.8 3.4-4 

Low Emission Technology Demonstration Fund 58.8 

CANADA 

PROJECT 

INDUSTRY 

FUNDING 

(US$M) 

VOL. CO 2 

(Mtpa) 


Enhance Energy’s Alberta Carbon Trunk Line Oil refinery & fertiliser 552 1.8 




Weyburn-Midale Storage Project Synfuels (SNG) 36.0 3 

CO 2 Capture and Storage Incentive Program 1.0 


Federal subsidy 26.9 

Provincial subsidy (Saskatchewan) 3.1 

Provincial subsidy (Alberta) 0.9 

Royalty Credit (Saskatchewan) 1.9 

Quest CCS Project Oil refinery 861.7 1.2 

Alberta Energy Research Institute 6.5 



Spectra Fort Nelson Gas processing 32.0 1.2-2.9 

Federal ecoEnergy Technology Initiative 32 

JAPAN 

PROJECT 

INDUSTRY 

FUNDING 

(US$M) 

VOL. CO 2 

(Mtpa) 


Tomakomai Iron/Steel 208.2 TBD 

Government subsidy via the Japan CCS Company 208.2 

169



UNITED STATES 

PROJECT 

INDUSTRY 

FUNDING 

(US$M) 

VOL. CO 2 

(Mtpa) 


Faustina Hydrogen Coal-to-liquids 121.7 1.5 

Federal Power Sector and Industrial Gasification 

Tax Credits 

121.7 

Lake Charles Gasification SNG 399.1 ≥4 

Illinois FEED Grants 10.0 


Federal Power Sector and Industrial Gasification 

Tax Credits 

128.3 


Boise White Paper Mill Pulp & paper 0.5 0.72 


CEMEX – CO 2 Plant Cement 1.1 1 



Air Products Project Oil refinery 254.6 1 


ADM Company Illinois Industrial CCS Ethanol plant 100.5 1 


Praxair 40 Oil refinery 1.7 1 



Northern California CO 2 Reduction Project Various facilities 3.0 1 


Shell Mississippi CO 2 Project Various facilities 3.0 1 


40 

The Praxair project was cancelled in June 2010. 

170

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX B 

THE ASSET LIFECYCLE MODEL 

The asset lifecycle model represents the various stages in the development of a project, small or large, as 

it moves through planning, design, construction and operation. There are different systems available to 

defi ne project stages, sometimes using different terminology, but all effectively use the asset lifecycle model. 

This framework refl ects the decision points in a project lifecycle where developers either decide to continue 

to commit resources to refi ne the project further (gateways) or assess that future benefi ts will not cover the 

expected costs. 

FINAL INVESTMENT DECISION 

PLANNING 

ACTIVE 

Project phase 

IDENTIFY 

EVALUATE 

DEFINE 

EXECUTE 

OPERATE 

Developer’s 

goals 

Establish 

preliminary 

scope and 

business 

strategy 

Establish 

 

options and 

execution 

strategy 

 

and execution 

plan 

 

and construction 

 

maintain and 

 

Select concept 

Start-up 

Activities 

 

screening 

studies 

 


cost (±30-35%) 

and operating 

costs (±15-20%) 

 

to be assessed 

 

 

studies 

 

design 

 


cost (±20-25%) 

and operating 

costs (±10-15%) 

 

planning 

 

studies 

 

engineering 

 

 


cost (±10-15%) 

and operating 

costs (±5%) 

 

an engineering, 

procurement and 

construction 

supplier 

 

engineering 

 

 

 

 

operating 

organisation 

 

management 

 

 

 

maintenance 

support 

Modified from: WorleyParsons 2009 

A project is considered in ‘planning’ when it is in the Identify, Evaluate or Define stages (as outlined above) and 

is considered ‘active’ if it is under construction (Execute stage) or in Operation (Operate stage). As a project 

progresses through each stage, the level of defi nition increases with an improved understanding of the scope, 

cost, risk and schedule of the project. This approach reduces the uncertainty surrounding the project while 

managing upfront development costs. 

In the Identify stage, a proponent carries out early studies and preliminary comparisons of alternatives to 

determine the business viability of the broad project concept. For example, an oil and gas company believes 

that it could take concentrated CO 2 from one of its natural gas processing facilities and inject and store the 

CO 2 to increase oil production at one of its existing facilities. To start the process the company would conduct 

preliminary analysis of both the surface and subsurface requirements of the project to determine if the overall 

project concept seemed viable and attractive. It is important that the Identify stage considers all relevant 

171



aspects of the project (stakeholder management, project delivery, regulatory approvals, infrastructure as well 

as physical carbon capture and storage facilities). Before progressing to the Evaluate stage, it is important that 

all the options to be considered in this stage are clearly identifi ed. 

In the Evaluate stage, the broad project concept is built upon by exploring the range of possible options that 

could be employed. For the oil and gas company this would involve exploring: 

• which of its facilities, and possibly even facilities of other companies, might be best placed to provide the 

concentrated CO 2 for the project; 

• possible pipeline routes that could be utilised from each of these sites and even alternative transport options 

such as trucking and shipping if relevant; and 

• which oil production fi eld is suitable for CO 2 injection based on its proximity to the concentrated CO 2 , the 

stage of oil production at the fi eld and other site factors. 

For each option the costs, benefi ts, risks and opportunities would be identifi ed. It is important that the Evaluate 

stage considers, for each option, all relevant aspects of the project (stakeholder management, project deliver, 

regulatory approvals, infrastructure as well as physical carbon capture and storage facilities). At the end of this 

stage, the preferred option is selected and becomes the subject of the Defi ne stage. The preferred option must 

be suffi ciently defi ned. No further key options are to be studied in the Defi ne stage. 

In the Defi ne stage, the selected option is investigated in greater detail by carrying out feasibility studies and 

preliminary engineering and design (FEED). For the oil and gas company this would involve determining 

the specifi c technology to be used, the design and overall costs for the project, the permits and approvals 

required, the key risks to the project, as well as undertaking a range of activities such as focused stakeholder 

engagement processes, seeking out fi nance or funding opportunities and tendering for and selecting an 

engineering, procurement and contracting supplier. 

At the end of the Defi ne stage, the level of project defi nition must be suffi cient to allow for FID to be made. 

The level of investment defi nition typically required for FID is +/- 10-15 per cent for overall project capital costs 

and +/- 5-10 per cent (closer to fi ve) for project operating costs. 

The Identify, Evaluate and Define stages can take between four and seven years and the order of 10-15 per cent of 

overall project capital cost depending on the size, industry and complexity of the project. 

In the Execute stage, the detailed engineering design is fi nalised. The construction and commissioning of 

the plant occurs and the organisation to operate the facility is established. Once completed, the project then 

moves into the Operate stage. 

172

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX C 

TABLES 

Table C-1 Technical maturity definitions by industry 

INDUSTRY 

Electric 

power 

– biomass 

Electric 

power – 

coal 

Electric 

power – 

gas 

Aluminium 

industry 

Cement 

industry 

Petrochemicals 

Iron and 

steel 

MEASUREMENT 

UNITS 

MWe, net 80 

MINIMUM SIZE 

UNIT DEFINING 

“COMMERCIAL- 

SCALE” 1 

UPPER 

BOUND OF 

COMMERCIAL 

SIZE UNIT 2 

PER CENT OF MINIMUM 

COMMERCIAL-SCALE 

SIZE OR 

LARGER 

PROJECT 

SCALE 

100% ≤ Scale 80 ≤ Scale Commercial 

10% ≤ Scale < 100% 8.0 ≤ Scale < 80 Demonstration 

5% ≤ Scale < 10% 4.0 ≤ Scale < 8.0 Pilot 

Scale < 5% Scale < 4.0 Bench 

MWe, net 500 3 100% ≤ Scale 500 ≤ Scale Commercial 

10% ≤ Scale < 100% 50 ≤ Scale < 500 Demonstration 

950 

5% ≤ Scale < 10% 25 ≤ Scale < 50 Pilot 

Scale < 5% Scale < 25 Bench 

MWe, net 400 3 100% ≤ Scale 400 ≤ Scale Commercial 

10% ≤ Scale < 100% 40 ≤ Scale < 400 Demonstration 

5% ≤ Scale < 10% 20 ≤ Scale < 40 Pilot 

Scale < 5% Scale < 20 Bench 

Metric 

tonnes/year 

Metric 

tonnes/year 

Barrels per 

Stream Day 

(BPSD) 

Metric 

tonnes/year 

50,000 900,000 100% ≤ Scale 50,000 ≤ Scale Commercial 

10% ≤ Scale < 100% 5,000 ≤ Scale < 50,000 Demonstration 

5% ≤ Scale < 10% 2,500 ≤ Scale < 5,000 Pilot 

Scale < 5% Scale < 2,500 Bench 

150,000 3,100,000 100% ≤ Scale 150,000 ≤ Scale Commercial 




100,000 400,000 100% ≤ Scale 100,000 ≤ Scale Commercial 




100,000 15,000,000 100% ≤ Scale 100,000 ≤ Scale Commercial 




CO 2 Metric 1,000,000 – 100% ≤ Scale 1,000,000 ≤ Scale Commercial 

transport tonnes/year 

2.5% ≤ Scale < 100% 25,000 ≤ Scale < 1,000,000 Demonstration 

and 

storage 

Scale < 2.5% Scale < 25,000 Pilot 

na na Bench 

1. 

no more than 5% of commercial units smaller 

2. 

no more than 5% of commercial units larger 

3. 

as per plant size assumptions for “small commercial” in IEA CCS Roadmap 

173



Table C-2 LSIPs by asset lifecycle stage 

LSIP 

NO. 


PROJECT 

NAME 

STATE/DISTRICT, 

COUNTRY 

CAPTURE 

FACILITY 

CAPTURE TYPE 

TRANSPORT 

TYPE 

STORAGE 

TYPE 

Identify 

1 Chemical Plant, 

Yulin 

Shanxi Province, 

China 

Coal-to-liquids plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Various onshore storage 

options being considered 

2 CO 2 Global – 

Project Viking 

New Mexico, 

United States 

150MWe oxyfuel 

combustion using synthetic 

fuel oil 

Oxyfuel 

combustion 

48.3km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

3 Coolimba Power 

Project 

Western Australia, 

Australia 

2x200MW or 3x150MW 

coal-fired CFB power plant 

Postcombustion 

20-80km 

pipeline 

Onshore depleted oil and 


4 FutureGen 2.0 Illinois, 

United States 

200MW coal-fired 

oxyfuel combustion 

plant 

Oxyfuel 

combustion 

Pipeline 

Various onshore storage 

options being considered 

5 Good Spring 

IGCC 

Pennsylvania, 

United States 

270MW coal-fired IGCC 

power plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore EOR and deep 

saline formations 

6 Immingham 

Carbon Capture 

and Storage 

Project 

Lincolnshire, 

England, United 

Kingdom 

800-1,200MW multi-fuel 

IGCC power plant at oil 

refinery 

Precombustion 

300km 

pipeline 

Offshore geological 

7 Kedzierzyn 

Polygeneration 

Power Plant 

Opolskie, Poland 

300MW gross 

polygeneration power plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore deep saline 

formations 

8 Korea-CCS2 Republic of Korea 300MW coal-fired oxyfuel 

or IGCC power plant 

Oxyfuel 

or precombustion 

Pipeline then 

800km by 

ship 

Offshore deep saline 

formations 

9 North East CCS 

Cluster 

Teeside, England, 



and 420MW coal/biomass 

fired power plants 

Precombustion 

225km 

pipeline 


formations 

10 Shenhua Ph 2 Inner Mongolia, 

China 


Precombustion 

30-100km 

unspecified 

transport 


Evaluate 

11 Boise White 

Paper Mill 

Washington State, 

United States 

Pulp and paper mill 


Not specified 

Basalt formations 

174

APPENDICES 

LSIP TRAFFIC LIGHT CLASSIFICATIONS AGAINST G8 CRITERIA 

1. 

LARGE- 

SCALE 

2. 

FULL 

INTEGRATION 

3. 

PROJECTS 

OPERATION 

SCHEDULE 

4. 

STORAGE 

SITE AND 

TRANSPORT 

DEFINITION 

5. 

MEASUREMENT, 

MONITORING AND 

VERIFICATION 

(MMV) 

6. 

PUBLIC 

ENGAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES 

7. ESTABLISHED 

PUBLIC/PRIVATE 

SECTOR SUPPORT 

PROJECT 

NOTES 

5-10Mtpa Integrated By 2020 Very little 

definition 

1.2Mtpa 

Integrated with 

dependency on 

partners 

2014 Yes Limited MMV 

(EOR) 

2Mtpa Integrated 2015 Limited 

definition 

1Mtpa Integrated By 2020 Very little 

definition 

1Mtpa 

4-7Mtpa 

2.47Mtpa 

1.5- 

2.5Mtpa 

7.5Mtpa 

1Mtpa 

Integrated, with 

agreements still 

being pursued 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners 



being pursued 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners 

2015 Limited 

definition 

By 2020 

Very little 

definition 

2015 Limited 

definition 

2019 Very little 

definition 

2015 Limited 

definition 

Intended Yes Insufficient 

information provided 

Same asset lifecycle 

stage in 2009 

Intended No Identified as new 

project in 2010 

Intended Yes No Was in Evaluate in 

2009, reassessed 

to Identify in 2010 

Intended Intended Adequate to 

complete current 

asset lifecycle stage 

Insufficient 

information 

provided 

Identified as a new 

project in 2010 – 

originating from the 

cancelled FutureGen 

Project 

Intended No Identified as a new 


Intended Intended Insufficient 











By 2020 Yes Yes Yes Adequate to 



Evolved to be 

included in 2010 LSIP 

list as not enough 

information on status 

and asset lifecycle 

stage was known in 

2009 


stage in 2009 



Reassessed from 

Evaluate in 2009 

to Identify in 2010 

Identified as new 


0.72Mtpa Integrated 2014 Limited 

definition 

Insufficient 

information 

provided 

Intended No Identified as new 


175




LSIP 

NO. 


PROJECT 

NAME 


COUNTRY 

CAPTURE 

FACILITY 

CAPTURE TYPE 

TRANSPORT 

TYPE 

STORAGE 

TYPE 

12 Bow City Alberta, Canada 1,000MW coal-fired 

power plant 


6-30km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

13 Browse LNG Western Australia, 

Australia 

Liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) plant 

Gas 

processing 

Pipeline 


or depleted oil and gas 

reservoirs 

14 Cash Creek Kentucky, United 

States 

630MW net coal IGCC 

power plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

15 CEMEX CO 2 

Capture Plant 

United States Cement plant Postcombustion 

Pipeline 

Not specified 

16 Faustina 

Hydrogen 

Louisiana, United 

States 


Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

17 Freeport 

Gasification 

Texas, United 

States 

Petcoke to SNG plant 

(plus 400MW electricity 

from excess steam) 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

18 South Heart 

IGCC 

North Dakota, 

United States 

175MW net output 

lignite-fired IGCC plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

19 GreenGen Tianjin, China 1x400MW (phase III) 

coal-fired IGCC power plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

20 Hatfield South Yorkshire, 

England, United 

Kingdom 

2x450MW gross coal-fired 

IGCC power plant 

Precombustion 

175km 

pipeline 


formations or depleted oil 

and gas reservoirs 

21 Hunterston 

Power APL 

North Ayrshire, 

Scotland, United 

Kingdom 

2x926MW multi-fuel 

(coal/biomass)-fired 

power plant 


Pipeline 

Offshore depleted oil and 


22 Indiana 

Gasification 

Indiana, 

United States 

Coal to SNG plant 

Precombustion 

7.2km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

176

APPENDICES 

1. 

LARGE- 

SCALE 

1Mtpa 

2. 

FULL 

INTEGRATION 



being pursued 


3. 

PROJECTS 

OPERATION 

SCHEDULE 

4. 

STORAGE 

SITE AND 

TRANSPORT 

DEFINITION 

2016 Limited 

definition 


definition 

2Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners 

2015 Limited 

definition 

1Mtpa Integrated 2015† Very little 

definition 

1.5Mtpa 

2Mtpa 

2.1Mtpa 

2Mtpa 

5Mtpa 

2Mtpa 

1Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners 



being pursued 


uncertainty over 

agreements 



being pursued 


dependency on 

partners 



being pursued 



being pursued 

5. 

MEASUREMENT, 


VERIFICATION 

(MMV) 

6. 

PUBLIC 

ENGAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES 




PROJECT 

NOTES 

Intended Intended No Evolved to be 



information on CO 2 

volume was known in 

2009 

Insufficient 

information 

provided 

Insufficient 

information 

provided 

Insufficient 

information 

provided 

By 2020 Yes Insufficient 

information 

provided 


definition 

Insufficient 

information 

provided 

Intended 

Insufficient 



stage in 2009 

Yes No Same asset lifecycle 

stage in 2009* 



Intended No Evolved to be 



information on scale 

and integration was 

known in 2009 

Intended No Was in Define in 

2009, reassessed 

to Evaluate in 2010 

2017 Evolved to be included 

in 2010 LSIP list as 

was identified as only 

capture ready in 2009 


definition 

2015 Limited 

definition 

2017 Limited 

definition 

By 2020 Yes Insufficient 

information 

provided 

Intended Yes Adequate to 










stage in 2009 


stage in 2009 

Evolved to be included 


was identified as only 

capture ready in 2009 

Yes No Evolved to be included 


was identified as 

delayed in 2009 

177




LSIP 

NO. 


PROJECT 

NAME 


COUNTRY 

CAPTURE 

FACILITY 

CAPTURE TYPE 

TRANSPORT 

TYPE 

STORAGE 

TYPE 

23 Korea-CCS-1 Republic of Korea 300MW coal-fired power 

plant 


Pipeline then 

250km ship 


formations 

24 Leucadia 

Mississippi 

Mississippi, 

United States 

Petcoke to SNG plant 

Precombustion 

176km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

25 Mongstad CCS 

(full scale) 

Hordaland, 

Norway 

Natural gas-fired combined 

heat (350MW) and power 

(280MW) plant 


Pipeline 


formations 

26 Peterhead Aberdeenshire, 


Kingdom 

400MW gas-fired power 

plant 


Pipeline 

Various offshore 

storage options being 

considered. 

27 Romanian CCS 

Demo 

Oltenia, Romania 

330MW lignite fired power 

plant 


20-50km 

pipeline 


formations 

28 Rotterdam CCS 

Network 

Rotterdam, 

Netherlands 

Range of CO 2 capture 

facilities 

Various 

25-150km 

shipping or 

common 

carrier 

pipeline 



29 SCS Energy 

PurGen One 

New Jersey, 

United States 


power plant 

Precombustion 

160km 

pipeline 


formations 

30 Shell CO 2 Louisiana, 

United States 

Various CO 2 capture 

facilities 

Various Pipeline Onshore deep saline 

formations 

31 Southland CTF 

Project 

Southland, 

New Zealand 

Coal to fertiliser plant 

Precombustion 

100km 

pipeline 


formations 

32 Spectra Fort 

Nelson 

British Columbia, 

Canada 

Natural gas processing 

plant 

Gas 

processing 

30km 

pipeline 


formations 

178

APPENDICES 

1. 

LARGE- 

SCALE 

2. 

FULL 

INTEGRATION 


3. 

PROJECTS 

OPERATION 

SCHEDULE 

4. 

STORAGE 

SITE AND 

TRANSPORT 

DEFINITION 


definition 

4Mtpa 



being pursued 

5. 

MEASUREMENT, 


VERIFICATION 

(MMV) 


(EOR) 


definition 

1Mtpa Integrated By 2020 Limited 

definition 


definition 

3.35Mtpa 

(in 

addition 

to ROAD 

and Air 

Liquide) 

2.6Mtpa 

1Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners 



being pursued 



being pursued 

2015 Limited 

definition 

6. 

PUBLIC 

ENGAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES 







PROJECT 

NOTES 



Yes No Identified as a new 














2016 Yes Intended Yes Adequate to 



2015† Limited 

definition 


definition 

1.2Mtpa 

(demo 

2010- 

2017), 

2.9Mtpa 

after 

Evolved to be 





known in 2009 



was identified as 

delayed in 2009 







Intended Yes No Identified as a new 





Integrated 2014 Yes Yes Intended Adequate to 






stage in 2009 

179




LSIP 

NO. 


PROJECT 

NAME 


COUNTRY 

CAPTURE 

FACILITY 

CAPTURE TYPE 

TRANSPORT 

TYPE 

STORAGE 

TYPE 

33 Swan Hills Alberta, Canada In situ coal gasification 

(syngas) with 300MW net 

combined cycle power plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

34 Sweeny 

Gasification 

Texas, 

United States 

680MW petcoke IGCC 

power plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

35 Taylorville IGCC Illinois, 

United States 

716MW gross hybrid IGCC 

coal power plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

36 The Collie Hub Western Australia, 

Australia 


facilities 

Precombustion 

and postcombustion 

80km 

pipeline 


formations 

37 Victorian 

CarbonNet 

Victoria, Australia 


facilities 

Various 

80-150km 

pipeline 

Near shore deep saline 

formations 

38 Wandoan Power Queensland, 

Australia 

400MW net coal-fired IGCC 

power plant 

Precombustion 

10-180km 

pipeline 

Onshore beneficial reuse 

or deep saline formations 

Define 

39 AEP 

Mountaineer 

235-MWe CO 2 

Capture 

West Virginia, 

United States 

235MWe slipstream from 

1,300MW net coal-fired 

power plant 


APPENDICES 

1. 

LARGE- 

SCALE 

1.4Mtpa 

3Mtpa 

1.9Mtpa 

2.5- 

7.5Mtpa 

2. 

FULL 

INTEGRATION 


dependency on 

partners 



being pursued 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners 


3. 

PROJECTS 

OPERATION 

SCHEDULE 

4. 

STORAGE 

SITE AND 

TRANSPORT 

DEFINITION 

2015 Limited 

definition 

2015 Limited 

definition 

2015 Limited 

definition 

2015 Limited 

definition 

5. 

MEASUREMENT, 


VERIFICATION 

(MMV) 

6. 

PUBLIC 

ENGAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES 







Insufficient 

information 

provided 

PROJECT 

NOTES 

Evolved to be 





known in 2009 










stage in 2009 



3.3Mtpa 



being pursued 

2018 Limited 

definition 






2.5Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners 

2015 Limited 

definition 





stage in 2009 


definition 




Progressed from 

Identify in 2009 

to Define in 2010 

0.55Mtpa 

1Mtpa 

1Mtpa 



being pursued 


dependency on 

partners. 

Insufficient 

information 

provided 

2012 Limited 

definition 


(EOR) 

2012 Limited 

definition 


definition 


definition 




Insufficient 

information 

provided 

Yes 

Intended 

Adequate to 



Adequate to 




















181




LSIP 

NO. 


PROJECT 

NAME 


COUNTRY 

CAPTURE 

FACILITY 

CAPTURE TYPE 

TRANSPORT 

TYPE 

STORAGE 

TYPE 

45 Coffeyville 

Gasification 

Plant 

Kansas, 

United States 

Fertiliser plant 

Precombustion 

Pipeline 

EOR 

46 Dongguan Guangdong, China 800MW net coal-fired IGCC 

power plant 

Precombustion 

100km 

pipeline 



47 Eemshaven 

Nuon Magnum 

Groningen, 

Netherlands 

1,200MW multi-fueI-fired 


Precombustion 

Pipeline 

Depleted oil and gas 

reservoirs 

48 Entergy Nelson 

6 CCS Project 

Louisiana, 

United States 

585MW coal-fired power 

plant 


APPENDICES 

1. 

LARGE- 

SCALE 

0.59Mtpa 

Up to 

1Mtpa 

1.3Mtpa 

4Mtpa 

2Mtpa 

1.7Mtpa 

>4Mtpa 

1Mtpa 

2. 

FULL 

INTEGRATION 


dependency on 

partners 



being pursued 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners. 


dependency on 

partners. 


dependency on 

partners. 


3. 

PROJECTS 

OPERATION 

SCHEDULE 

4. 

STORAGE 

SITE AND 

TRANSPORT 

DEFINITION 

5. 

MEASUREMENT, 


VERIFICATION 

(MMV) 

By 2020 Yes Limited MMV 

(EOR) 

6. 

PUBLIC 

ENGAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES 

Intended 




Adequate to 



2015 Yes Yes Yes Adequate to 



2015 Yes Yes Intended Adequate to 




(EOR) 

Intended 

Adequate to 



2016 Yes Yes Yes Adequate to 



2015 Limited 

definition 


(EOR) 

2015 Limited 

definition 




Yes 

Adequate to 



Yes Yes Adequate to 



PROJECT 

NOTES 












stage in 2009 



it is now listed as a 

separate project 






2Mtpa 

1Mtpa 

4.3Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners. 


dependency on 

partners 



being pursued 





(EOR) 

2013 Limited 

definition 


definition 

Intended 

Insufficient 








1.2Mtpa Integrated 2015 Yes Intended Yes Adequate to 




stage in 2009 




stage in 2009 





stage in 2009 

183




LSIP 

NO. 


PROJECT 

NAME 


COUNTRY 

CAPTURE 

FACILITY 

CAPTURE TYPE 

TRANSPORT 

TYPE 

STORAGE 

TYPE 

58 ROAD Rotterdam, 

Netherlands 

250MW equivalent on 

1,070MW coal/biomassfired 

power plant 


25km 

pipeline 



59 RWE 

Eemshaven 

Groningen, 

Netherlands 

780MW net coal-fired 

power plant (biomass in 

future) 


80km 

pipeline 

Depleted oil and gas 

reservoirs 

60 Texas Clean 

Energy Project 

(NowGen) 

Texas, 

United States 


power/ poly-geneneration 

plant 

Precombustion 

132km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

61 Tenaska 

Trailblazer 

Texas, 

United States 

600MW net supercritical 

PC power plant 


Pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

62 The Compostilla 

Project 

Leon, Spain 

322MWe (Phase 2) coalfired 

oxyfuel combustion 

power plant 

Oxyfuel 

combustion 

150km 

pipeline 


formations 

63 Transalta 

Project Pioneer 

Alberta, Canada 

450MW gross coal-fired 

power plant 


50km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR and deep 

saline formations 

64 ULCOS 

Florange 

Lorraine, France Steel plant Postcombustion 

100km 

pipeline 


formations 

65 Vattenfall 

Jänschwalde 

Brandenburg, 

Germany 

250MW lignite fired oxyfuel 

and 50MW lignite fired 

power plant 

Oxyfuel 

combustion 

and postcombustion 

60-300km 

pipeline 


formations 

Execute 

66 Enhance Energy 

EOR Project 


Fertiliser production and 

hydrogen production at 

the oil refinery 

Precombustion 

(Fertiliser) 

and precombustion 

(oil refinery) 

240km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

67 Gorgon Project Western Australia, 

Australia 

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

processing plant 

Gas 

processing 

10km 

pipeline 


formations 

68 Occidental Gas 

Processing 

Plant 

Texas, 

United States 


plant 

Gas 

processing 

256km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

184

APPENDICES 

1. 

LARGE- 

SCALE 

1.1Mtpa 

1.1Mtpa 

2.7Mtpa 

5.75Mtpa 

2. 

FULL 

INTEGRATION 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners 



being pursued 


3. 

PROJECTS 

OPERATION 

SCHEDULE 

4. 

STORAGE 

SITE AND 

TRANSPORT 

DEFINITION 

2015 Limited 

definition 

5. 

MEASUREMENT, 


VERIFICATION 

(MMV) 

6. 

PUBLIC 

ENGAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES 







2015 Yes Yes Intended Adequate to 






2016 Limited 

definition 


definition 

1Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners 

2015 Limited 

definition 


definition 


definition 

Insufficient 

information 

provided 

Yes 

Adequate to 















PROJECT 

NOTES 






to Define in 2010* 











Evolved to be 





known in 2009 




1.8Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners 

2012 Yes Yes Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle 

stage in 2009 

3.4- 

4Mtpa 

9Mtpa 

Integrated 2014 Yes Yes Yes Yes Progressed from 

Define in 2009 to 

Execute in 2010 


dependency on 

partners 


(EOR) 

Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle 


185




LSIP 

NO. 


PROJECT 

NAME 


COUNTRY 

CAPTURE 

FACILITY 

CAPTURE TYPE 

TRANSPORT 

TYPE 

STORAGE 

TYPE 

69 Southern 

Company IGCC 

Mississippi, 

United States 

582MW net coal-fired 


Precombustion 

97.6km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

Operate 

70 Enid Fertilizer Oklahoma, 

United States 

Fertiliser plant 

Precombustion 

192km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

71 In Salah Ouargla Wilaya, 

Algeria 


plant 

Gas 

processing 

14km 

pipeline 


formations 

72 Rangely Colorado, 

United States 


plant 

Gas 

processing 

285km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

73 Salt Creek EOR Wyoming, 

United States 


plant 

Gas 

processing 

201km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

74 Sharon Ridge Texas, 

United States 


plants 

Gas 

processing 

Pipeline 

(CRC and 

Val Verde) 

Onshore EOR 

75 Sleipner North Sea, Norway Natural gas processing 

platform 

Gas 

processing 

Minimal 

(capture 

same as 

storage 

location) 


formations 

76 Snøhvit North Sea, Norway Liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

plant 

Gas 

processing 

154km 

pipeline 


formations 

77 Weyburn-Midale 

Storage Project 

Saskatchewan, 

Canada 

Synfuels plant including 

SNG 

Precombustion 

330km 

pipeline 

Onshore EOR 

† 

Assumed based on government funding requirements. 

* 

Added to the 2009 LSIP baseline: as the new scale criteria was applied to the 2009 data (described in The Status of CCS Projects: Interim Report 2010); 

or was a LSIP in 2009 that was omitted from the 2009 Status Report (WorleyParsons et al. 2009). 

# 

The South Heart IGCC project was newly identified in late 2010 and suffi cient information was not provided to undertake a traffi c light assessment. 

186

APPENDICES 

1. 

LARGE- 

SCALE 

2.5Mtpa 

2. 

FULL 

INTEGRATION 


dependency on 

partners 


3. 

PROJECTS 

OPERATION 

SCHEDULE 

4. 

STORAGE 

SITE AND 

TRANSPORT 

DEFINITION 

5. 

MEASUREMENT, 


VERIFICATION 

(MMV) 


(EOR) 

6. 

PUBLIC 

ENGAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES 




PROJECT 

NOTES 

Yes Yes Evolved to be 



information on CO 2 

volume was known in 

2009 

0.68Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners 


(EOR) 



1Mtpa Integrated 2004 Yes Yes Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle 

stage in 2009 

1Mtpa 

2.4Mtpa 

1.3Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners 


dependency on 

partners 


stage in 2009 


(EOR) 


(EOR) 


stage in 2009 


stage in 2009 

1Mtpa Integrated 1996 Yes Yes Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle 

stage in 2009 

0.7Mtpa Integrated 2007 Yes Yes Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle 

stage in 2009 

3Mtpa 


dependency on 

partners 


stage in 2009 

187



Table C-3 Cancelled or delayed LSIPs 

CHANGES 

FROM 2009 

TO 2010 

ASSET 

LIFECYCLE 

STAGE PROJECT NAME NOTES COUNTRY 

Cancelled Identify Carbon Store Australia LASSIE Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been replaced 

with CarbonNet 

Australia 

Cancelled Identify Kalundborg DONG Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been cancelled Denmark 

Cancelled Identify Rotterdam CGEN Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been cancelled Netherlands 

Cancelled Identify Shell/Essent Low CO 2 

Power Plant Project 

Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been cancelled Netherlands 

Cancelled Identify BKK Gasskraftverk Mongstad 

(BKK CCGT Mongstad) 

Cancelled Evaluate ZeroGen Commercial 

Scale Project 

Cancelled Define FINNCAP – Meri Pori 

CCS Project 

Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been cancelled 

Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been cancelled 

Progressed from Evaluate in 2009 to Define in 

2010, has since been cancelled 

Cancelled Define Barendrecht Shell Progressed from Identify in 2009 to Define in 

2010, has since been cancelled 

Cancelled Define FutureGen Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been replaced 

with FutureGen 2.0 

Norway 

Australia 

Finland 

Netherlands 

United States 

Delayed Identify FuturGas Project Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed Australia 

Delayed Identify NW Bohemia Clean Coal Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed Czech Republic 

Project 

Delayed Identify Aalborg (Nordjyllandsvaerket) Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed Denmark 

Delayed Evaluate RWE Goldenbergwerk (Huerth) Reassessed from Define in 2009 to Evaluate in 

2010, has since been delayed 

Germany 

Delayed Evaluate Bintulu CCS project Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed Malaysia 

Delayed Evaluate Kårstø Full Scale Progressed from Identify in 2009 to Evaluate in Norway 


Delayed Define Capital Power Corporation – 

Genesee CCS Project – IGCC 

Delayed Define Sargas Husnes Clean 

Coal Project 

Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed 


Delayed Define Kingsnorth Demo Plant Progressed from Evaluate in 2009 to Define in 


Delayed Define Tilbury Clean Coal Power 

Station 

Delayed Evaluate Southern California Edison 

IGCC Project 

Delayed Define Antelope Valley Station 

Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture 

Delayed Define SWP – Development Phase – 

Deep Saline Sequestration 





Canada 

Norway 



United States 

United States 

United States 

188

APPENDICES 

Table C-4 Traffic light definitions used to classify LSIPs against the G8 criteria 

G8 

CRITERIA 

Green 

Amber 

Red 

SCALE 

The project is 

either: 

(a) coal-fired 

power project 

that captures 

and stores at 

least 80 per 

cent of 1Mtpa 

CO 2; or 

(b) natural 

gas-fired 

power plant, 

industrial or 

natural gas 

processing 

installation 

captures and 

stores at least 

80 per cent of 

500ktpa CO 2. 

The project has 

specified a range 

that could meet 

the target. 

The project does 

not meet the 

scale. 

FULL 

INTEGRATION 

The project is 

integrated. If it 

is dependent 

on other 

entities for any 

part of the CCS 

chain, parties 

have reached 

agreements on 

funding and 

structures. 

The project 

intends to be 

integrated, 

but if it is 

dependent on 

other entities 

for any part 

of the CCS 

chain, the 

parties have 

not reached 

agreement 

on funding or 

structures. 


does not 

intend to be 

integrated. 

SCHEDULE OF 

FULL-SCALE 

OPERATION 

A detailed 

project 

schedule 

has been 

developed. 

Proposed 

timeframes 

are reasonably 

achievable to 

meet full-scale 

operation by 

2020. 

A detailed 

project 

schedule has 

not yet been 

developed. 

Proposed 

timeframes 

are reasonably 

achievable to 


operation by 

2020. 

A detailed 

project 

schedule has 

not yet been 

developed. 

Proposed 

timeframes 

are extremely 

tight and are 

unlikely to be 

achievable to 


operation by 

2020. 

STORAGE SITE 

LOCATION 

The primary 

site is 

identified with 

site characterisation 

underway 

and preferred 

CO 2 transport 

routes linking 

the capture 

site and the 

storage site 

have been 

identified. 

Possible 

storage sites 

and CO 2 

transport 

routes have 

been identified 

but the level 

of definition of 

these options 

is limited and 

detailed work 

is yet to begin. 

Very little 

definition 

around the 

storage site 

and transport 

routes. 

MMV 

An MMV 

plan has 

been 

developed 

that will 

provide a 

high level of 

confidence 

that 

sequestered 

CO 2 will 

be closed 

securely. 


intends to 

develop and 

implement 

an MMV plan 

to provide a 


confidence 

that 

sequestered 

CO 2 will 

be stored 

securely 

at the 

appropriate 

stage of its 

development. 


does not 

intend to 

develop an 

MMV plan 

to provide a 


confidence 

that 

sequestered 

CO 2 will 

be stored 

securely. 

PUBLIC 

ENGAGEMENT 

STRATEGY 

Appropriate 

strategies 

(e.g. 

stakeholder 

outreach 

strategy and 

engagement 

plan) are 

in place to 

engage the 

public and to 

incorporate 

input into the 

project. 


intends to 

develop 

appropriate 

strategies to 

engage the 

public and to 

incorporate 


project. 


has given no 

consideration 

to the 

development 

of 

appropriate 

strategies to 

engage the 

public and to 

incorporate 


project. 

PROJECT 

IMPLEMENTATION 

& FUNDING PLANS 

Major milestones 

have been 

identified and 

adequate 

funding is in 

place to fund the 

entire project’s 

advancement to 

operation. 

Major milestones 

have been 

identified and 

adequate 

funding has 

been received to 

support activities 

required in the 

project’s current 

stage in the asset 

lifecycle. 

Funding has not 

been received to 

support activities 

required in the 

project’s current 

stage in the asset 

lifecycle. 

If nothing has been specified or not enough information has been provided for any one of the G8 criteria, the LSIP will 

be classified as RED. 

189



Table C-5 Recent country/regional screening assessments 

REGION INITIATIVE COVERAGE STATUS/DESCRIPTION DATE COMPLETED 

Australia 

Australia 

Australia 

Australian Mapping and Storage 

Infrastructure Task Force 

Queensland Regional 

Assessment 

Gippsland Dynamic 

Modelling/Vic GCS 

Onshore and 

offshore Australia 

(13 Basins) 

36 Basins in 

Queensland 

Victorian Gippsland 

Basin 

Reports on 13 highest potential basins, 

montage summaries plus a suite of 

economics and supplementary reports 

(Australian Carbon Storage Taskforce 

2009.) 

Summary report released. Main 

report released in 2010. 

To better understand the impact 

of CO 2 storage on other resources 

within the region 

To better understand the impact of 

CO 2 storage on other resources within 

the region. 

South Africa National Storage Atlas South Africa First edition released in September 


Brazil CARBMAP Brazil East coast 

continental shelf 

United States/ 

Canada 

China 

Assessments for storage potential have 

recently commenced. EOR Studies 

September 2009 

December 2009 

In preparation 

September 2010 

North American Storage Atlas Third extended edition December 2010 

Regional Opportunities for 

Carbon Dioxide Capture and 

Storage in China 

Potential Capacity and 

Evaluation Storage in China 

Project 

All Chinese Basins 

Full Basin review 

Dahowski, R. T., Li, X., Davidson, 

C. L. Wei, N. and Dooley, J. J., 2009. 

Potential Capacity and Evaluation 

Storage in China Project – China 

Geological Survey and otherscommenced 

in 2009 

Europe European Union Geocapacity 22 Countries European capacity in member states 

EU Geocapacity (2008) 

In preparation 

2008 

190

APPENDICES 

Table C-6 Initiatives for establishing new CO 2 networks for CCS 41 

NAME/REGION 

1. Rotterdam 

Climate 

Initiative (RCI) 42 , 

Netherlands 

2. CCS in Northern 

Netherlands, 

Netherlands 

3. CO 2 Sense, 

Yorkshire/ Humber, 


4. Scottish Cluster, 

Firth of Forth, 


Kingdom 

OVERVIEW/STATUS 

RCI has developed a CCS business case for a CO 2 cluster 

approach for the Port of Rotterdam area, with pipeline and 

shipping options. 

Connected to multiple storage sites, depleted gas fields in 

North Sea in particular. 

Includes building on existing OCAP pipeline network for 

supplying CO 2 used commercially in greenhouses. 

Signed Letters of Cooperation with 9 companies for possible 

capture projects (coal power, IGCC, hydrogen plants, etc.). 

Undertaken comprehensive financial analysis and 

independent assessment of storage sites in the Dutch 

sector of the North Sea. 

Action Plan published in 2009 for developing a CCS 

network in Northern Netherlands. 

Preferred storage locations identified in three depleted 

onshore depleted gas fields located in the north of the 

Netherlands, with more detailed assessment to follow. 

Large concentration of industrial single-source CO 2 

emitters, currently emitting 60Mtpa. 

Targeting depleted gas fields and saline aquifers in 

southern North Sea for storage. 

Pre-FEED work on network completed in 2010. 

Scottish CCS Joint Study identified need for developing 

capture and storage hubs in Scotland 

Preferred initial route being an offshore pipeline from 

Firth of Forth to east cost, with four potential storage 

hubs identified in North Sea 

Possible re-use of existing National Grid natural gas 

pipelines as North Sea gas production declines. 

A Scottish Carbon Capture Transport and Storage 

Development Study will further assess storage capacity. 

INITIAL ‘ANCHOR’ 

DEMONSTRATION 

PROJECTS (WITH ASSET 

LIFECYCLE STAGE) 

• Rotterdam Afvang 

en Opslag Demo 

(Define) 

• Air Liquide 

Hydrogen Plant 

(Define) 

• Capture from 

additional 

emitter(s) in the 

Port of Rotterdam 

(Evaluate) 

• Eemshaven RWE 

(Define) 

• Nuon Magnum 

(Define) 

• Immingham CCS 

Project (Identify); 

potentially integrated 

with network 

plans, but some 

uncertainty 

• Hatfield IGCC 

(Evaluate) 

• Longannet Clean 

Coal Power Station 

(Define) 

• APL/Hunterston 

(Evaluate); 

potentially integrated 

with network 

plans, but some 

uncertainty 

SCALE NOTES FOR 

OVERALL NETWORK 

• 5Mtpa, scaling 

up to potential 

25Mtpa 

• 2.4Mtpa, scaling 


12Mtpa 

• 9-12Mtpa, scaling 


40Mtpa 

• 20Mtpa; potential 

for being larger 

storage hub for 

Europe. 

CO 2 storage in combination with EOR is also being 

considered in Scotland. 

41 

Tables C-6 and C-7 are based on information that is publicly available (cross-referenced with the Global CCS Institute’s database on CCS projects) for 

categorizing these initiatives as a network or part thereof. Other network opportunities and even plans may exist, particularly plans that are relatively less 

advanced. For example, two separate large-scale projects for capturing CO 2 in the Republic of Korea are considering storage in some locations, but the 

Global CCS Institute does not have information suggesting an explicit plan for developing a ‘shared’ network approach is being considered. 

42 

As mentioned above, RCI will initially build off the OCAP network in Netherlands for supplying CO 2 to greenhouses. Though for the purposes of this report, 

RCI is still considered a new CO 2 network initiative for the purposes of geological storage. 

191




NAME/REGION 

5. Thames Cluster, 

Thames and 

Medway Estuaries, 


6. North East CCS 

Cluster, Teeside, 


7. Interreg Project, 

Skagerrak and 

Kattegat Regions, 

Scandinavia 


Nine existing and future power plants, plus an existing 

refinery identified for the basis of forming a capture hub. 

Additional depleted oil and gas fields identified for 

expanding storage hub. 

Advanced work on capturing CO 2 from two power plants: 

Rio Tinto Alcan existing Lynemouth plant and Progressive 

Energy’s proposed IGCC plant, Eston Grange. 

Shared pipeline being planned for transporting CO 2 to an 

identified deep saline formation in central North Sea. 

CO 2 capture from up to 12 existing sources including 

refineries and cement, chemical, pulp and paper, and power 

plants in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Total emissions 

of 12Mtpa. 


DEMONSTRATION 



• 16Mtpa, scaling up 

to potential 28Mtpa 

• Capture at proposed 

Eston Grange and 

existing Lynemouth 

power stations 

(Identify) 





15Mtpa 

• 250km pipeline 

to start 

Up to 10Mtpa 

Potential storage opportunities being explored, including 

deep saline formations onshore and offshore of Denmark. 

8. Collie Hub 

Project, Western 

Australia 

CO 2 capture from a fertiliser plant, followed by potential 

capture at proposed power plants and alumina plant. 

Feasibility study and business case being developed. 

Storage in Southern Perth Basin, with a primary storage site 

already selected and a pilot injection being planned as part 

of an initial ‘enabling’ phase. 

• Capture at industrial 

centres of Kwinana 

and Collie, including 

Perdaman fertiliser 

plant (Evaluate) 

• Up to 200km 

pipeline 

• 2.5Mtpa, with 

plans for scaling 

up 

9. Victorian 

CarbonNet, 

Victoria, Australia 

CO 2 from both existing and proposed coal power stations 

in the Latrobe Valley, for onshore storage at a selected deep 

saline formation, and potentially pilot project looking at 

mineralisation. 

An overall network feasibility study has been completed 

in 2009, with capture, transport, and storage costs analysed 

and financial structure and funding alternatives developed. 

Storage characterisation plant has also been developed. 

• Capture at two coalfired 

power plants 

(Evaluate) 



20Mtpa 

• Up to 150km 

pipeline 

More detailed feasibility studies currently underway for the 

various capture options, as well as the transport and storage 

systems. 

10. Masdar CCS 

Project, United 

Arab Emirates 

Capture and transportation of CO 2 by shared pipeline 

system to oil fields for EOR. 

CO 2 capture from steel, aluminium and power generation 

facilities. 

• Capture at Hydrogen 

Power Abu Dhabi 

(HPAD) and 

Emirates Alumina 

and Steel Plants 

(Define) 

• 6Mtpa by 2015 

onwards 


192

APPENDICES 


NAME/REGION 

11. Alberta Carbon 

Trunkline (ACTL)/ 

Integrated CO 2 

Network (ICO 2N), 



The ACTL is a pipeline network for gathering CO 2 from 

several sources in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland, and 

transporting to existing mature oil fields in South-Central 

Alberta for EOR. 

An initial supply of CO 2 has been confirmed with long-term 

supply agreements from two industrial sources, for an initial 

throughput planned for 1.8Mtpa. ACTL is in the advanced 

stages of engineering and obtaining regulatory approvals. 

ACTL is consistent with the first phase of a broader ICO 2N 

network being proposed by a consortium of 16 large final 

emitters in Alberta. 


DEMONSTRATION 



• Capture from 

existing fertiliser 

plant and then 

from a planned 

oil refinery, as 

part of Enhance 

Energy EOR Project 

(Execute) 



ACTL 



14.6Mtpa 


ICO 2N 

• Three phases 

scaling up to 

potential 35Mtpa 

• Up to 1,300km 

ICO 2N undertook a study for a comprehensive pipeline 

network, with optimal routing over three phases connecting 

up to 75 CO 2 sources from a broad range power generation 

and industrial facilities across Alberta. Focus on supplying 

CO 2 to 5 large areas for EOR. 

12. Pennsylvania 

CCS Network, 

United States 

State of Pennsylvania published 2009 report on technical 

and economic viability on an integrated CCS network. 

First phase involves retrofitting six coal-fired power plants 

for CO 2 capture, with later phases integrating additional 

capture at both power and industrial facilities. 

• 20-30Mtpa, 

scaling up to 

potential 

50-60Mtpa 

Accompanied by separate report identifying four major 

potential storage locations in Pennsylvania. 

13. Ohio Network, 

United States 

Pew Centre 2008 report identified Ohio-based industries 

that could be linked to a CO 2 pipeline network for the 

purposes of supplying CO 2 for EOR. 


Conceptual pipeline developed linking potential CO 2 sources 

to EOR opportunities. 

14. Bell Creek 

EOR, Wyoming, 

United States 

Denbury will source CO 2 from an existing natural gas 

processing plant, and pipeline it 330km to Bell Creek EOR. 

Additional EOR opportunities in proximity to Bell Creek are 

also being explored. 

• Capture from the 

Lost Cabin Gas Plant 

(LCGP) Capture 

Project (Define) 

• 1Mtpa to start 

193



Table C-7 LSIPs building on existing CO 2 infrastructure for EOR 43 

NAME/REGION 

OVERVIEW/ASSET LIFECYCLE STAGE 

ADDITION TO 

NETWORK 

Identify Stage 

1. CO 2 Global – Project 

Viking, New Mexico, 

United States 

Evaluate Stage 

CO 2 capture from oxycombustion power facility, feeding into an existing CO 2 

pipeline for transporting CO 2 for EOR in the Permian Basin. 

1.2Mtpa CO 2 

48km pipeline 

2. Faustina Hydrogen, 

Louisiana, United States 

3. Indiana Gasification, 

Indiana, United States 

4. Cash Creek, Kentucky, 

United States 

5. Leucadia Mississippi, 

Mississippi, United States 

6. Taylorville Energy Centre 

IGCC, Illinois, United 

States 

Define Stage 

7. Tenaska Trailblazer 

Energy Centre, Texas, 

United States 

8. Lake Charles 

Gasification Plant, 

Louisiana, United States 

9. Texas Clean Energy 

Project (Nowgen), Texas, 

United States 

10. Air Products Project, 

Texas, United States 

11. Entergy Nelson 6 CCS 

Project, Louisiana, United 

States 

Capturing CO 2 at a coal-to-liquids plant, and planning to supply CO 2 into Denbury’s 

515km Green Pipeline recently constructed for transporting CO 2 from Louisiana 

into Texas, which is connected to Denbury’s existing CO 2 pipeline network in 

Mississippi/Louisiana 

Pipeline options being explored to transport CO 2 from coal-fired IGCC/SNG plant 

to existing CO 2 pipelines in the region. 

CO 2 captured at a proposed IGCC facility, with plans to feed into Denbury’s 

proposed 1,130km Midwest CO 2 pipeline for connecting facilities in the Midwest 

to Denbury’s existing CO 2 pipeline network in the Gulf region. 

Will provide CO 2 from a petcoke to synthetic natural gas (SNG) plant to Denbury’s 

existing CO 2 network. 

CO 2 capture from a proposed IGCC plant, connecting into Denbury’s proposed 

Midwest CO 2 pipeline. 

CO 2 captured from coal-fired power plant will feed into established CO 2 pipeline 

in the vicinity. 

CO 2 captured from proposed petcoke gasification plant will be transported a 

short distance to Denbury’s Green Pipeline. 

CO 2 captured from proposed IGCC plant will be connected to Blue Source’s 

existing Val Verde CO 2 pipeline for transporting CO 2 to the Permian Basin. 

CO 2 delivered from a oil refinery to Denbury for EOR at existing operations 

in Texas. 

CO 2 from an existing coal-fired power station in Louisiana will be delivered to 

Denbury Resources’ Green Pipeline, which passes 8km to the power station, 

for transport to EOR in existing oil fields located near the Gulf Coast. 

1.5Mtpa CO 2 

515km pipeline 

1Mtpa CO 2 

7.2km pipeline 

2Mtpa CO 2 

1,130km 

pipeline 

4Mtpa CO 2 


1.9Mtpa CO 2 

5.75Mtpa CO 2 

4Mtpa CO 2 

2.7Mtpa CO 2 


1Mtpa CO 2 

4Mtpa CO 2 

43 

A few LSIPs that will supply CO 2 for EOR have not disclosed or confirmed an exact CO 2 offtaker, making it diffi cult to determine whether they are either 

building on existing CO 2 infrastructure, part of plans to establish a new CO 2 network, or will be just a single source-to-sink project (i.e. not a network). 

These include the following projects that are not included in Table C-7, but are planning to capture CO 2 in proximity to existing or plans in the near future 

to expand existing CO 2 pipeline infrastructure: 

• 

SaskPower Boundary Dam Project, Saskatchewan, Canada 

• 

Freeport Gasification Plant, Texas, United States 

• 

Sweeny Gasification, Texas, United States 

• 

Coffeyville Resources, Kansas, United States 

194

APPENDICES 

Table C-7 LSIPs building on existing CO 2 infrastructure for EOR 43 

NAME/REGION 

Execute Stage 

12. Southern Company 

IGCC Project, Mississippi, 

United States 

13. Occidental Gas 

Processing Plant, Texas, 

United States 

Operate 

14. Salt Creek Enhanced 

Oil Recovery, Wyoming, 

United States 

15. Enid Fertilizer, 

Oklahoma, United States 

16. Rangely Project, 

Colorado, United States 

17. Sharon Ridge EOR, 

Texas, United States 

OVERVIEW/ASSET LIFECYCLE STAGE 

ADDITION TO 

NETWORK 

CO 2 from IGCC project will be providing CO 2 to existing EOR operations. 2.5Mtpa CO 2 

CO 2 from natural gas processing plant will be purchased for EOR at an existing 

operation in Texas. A new pipeline will connect to a CO 2 industry hub in Denver 

City, Texas, sourcing CO 2 from other gas processing plants. 

97.6km pipeline 

8.5Mtpa CO 2 


CO 2 for EOR sourced from at least two different natural gas processing plants. 2.4Mtpa CO 2 

CO 2 from fertiliser plant feeding into a larger interconnected CO 2 pipeline/EOR 

network operated by Anadarko. 

CO 2 sourced from LaBarge gas processing facility (one of the plants that provides 

CO 2 to Salt Creek) and then transported by pipeline to Rangely field owned by 

Chevron Texaco. 

CO 2 sourced from at least four natural gas processing plants and transported by 

a broader CO 2 network for supporting EOR in the Permian Basin. 


0.675Mtpa CO 2 


1Mtpa CO 2 


1.3Mtpa CO 2 

195



APPENDIX D 

REFERENCES 

ARI (Advanced Resources International) and Melzer Consulting 2010, ‘Optimisation of CO 2 Storage in 

Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects,’ report prepared for the United Kingdom Department of Energy 

and Climate Change Offi ce of Carbon Capture & Storage, United Kingdom. 

Al-Juaied, M and Whitmore M 2009, ‘Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture’, Belfer Center Discussion Paper 2009-08. 

Ashworth, P, Rodriguez S, and Miller, A 2010, ‘Case Study of the CO2CRC Otway Project’, commissioned 

by Global CCS Institute, Canberra, Australia. 

Australian Carbon Storage Taskforce 2009, ‘National Carbon Mapping and Infrastructure Plan – Australia: 

Concise Report’, Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Canberra. 

Bachu, S 2003, ‘Screening and ranking sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO 2 in geological media 

in response to climate change’, Environmental Geology, 44, 277-289. 

Birat, JP 2009, ‘Steel and CO 2 – the ULCOS Program, CCS and Mineral Carbonation using Steelmaking Slag’, 

www.ulcos.org. 

Blyth 2010, ‘The economics of transition in the power sector’, IEA Discussion Paper, OECD/IEA France. 

Brennan, ST, Burruss, RC, Merrill, MD, Freeman, PA, and Ruppert, LF 2010, ‘A Probabilistic Assessment 

Methodology for the Evaluation of Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage’, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2010–1127, Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey. 

CCS TLM (Carbon Capture & Storage Through Life Management) 2010, ‘Regional Profi le: Middle East & 

North Africa’, report commissioned by the Global CCS Institute, Canberra, Australia. 

CO 2 Sense 2010, ‘A Carbon Capture and Storage network for Yorkshire and the Humber, Pre-Front End 

Engineering Study’, www.co2sense.org.uk. 

Dahowski, RT, Li, X, Davidson, CL Wei, N and Dooley, JJ 2009, ‘Regional Opportunities for Carbon Dioxide 

Capture and Storage in China: a comprehensive CO 2 storage cost curve and analysis of the potential 

for large-scale carbon dioxide capture and storage in the People’s Republic of China’, PNNL-19091, 

Pacifi c Northwest National Laboratory. 

de Marliave, L 2009, ‘Case study: Communicating CCS and public dialogue – Demonstrating CCS in an 

onshore site in Europe: The current status of the Lacq integrated CCS project’ in Ashworth, P, Rodriguez 

S, and Miller, A 2010, ‘Case Study of the CO2CRC Otway Project’, commissioned by Global CCS 

Institute, Canberra, Australia. 

DoE NETL (United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory) 2010, ‘Cost and 

Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants study, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural 

Gas to Electricity (Revision 2). 

Dooley, JJ, Dahowski RT and Davidson, CL 2010, ‘CO 2 driven Enhanced Oil Recovery as a Stepping Stone 

to What’, Report PNNL-19557, Pacifi c Northwest National Laboratory. 

Dütschke, E 2009, ‘Public participation practices and onshore CCS: Learning from Case Studies in Germany 

– CO 2 sink (Ketzin) and Vattenfall’s operation permit (Beeskow),’ in Desbarats et al. 2010, ‘Review 

of the public participation practices for CCS and non-CCS projects in Europe’, Institute for European 

Environmental Policy. 

196

APPENDICES 

ecoEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force 2008, ‘Canada’s Fossil Energy Future: The Way Forward 

on Carbon Capture and Storage’, www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca. 

Ehlig-Economides, CA and Economides, MJ 2010, ‘Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in a Closed Underground 

Volume’, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, pp. 70, 123-130. 

EU (European Union) Geocapacity 2008, ‘Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon 

Dioxide’, Publishable Final Activity Report, EU Geocapacity. 

Feenstra, CFJ, Mikunda, T, and Brunsting, S 2010, ‘What happened in Barendrecht’, Case study on the planned 

onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands, Energy Research Centre of Netherlands. 

Folger, P 2010, ‘Carbon Capture: A Technology Assessment’, CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report 

for Congress, 7-5700, R41325, July. 

Folland, L and Webb, S 2010, ‘Community engagement and carbon, capture and storage: a literature review 

and associated analysis’, Ogilvy Illumination, Australia. 

Forbes, SM, Almendra, F, and Ziegler, MS 2010, ‘CCS and Community Engagement: Guidelines for Community 

Engagement in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage Projects’, World Resources Institute, 

Washington DC. 

Garnett, A 2010, ‘The ZeroGen Flagships Project Look back and Update’, Presentation National CCS Week, 

Melbourne, Australia. 

Global CCS Institute 2010, The Status of CCS Projects Interim Report 2010, Global CCS Institute, Canberra, 

Australia. 

Gorecki, CD, Holubnyak, YI, Ayash, SC, Bremer, JM, Sorensen, JA, Steadman, EN and Harju, JA 2009, 

‘A New Classifi cation System for Evaluating CO 2 Storage Resource/Capacity Estimates’, paper presented 

to SPE International Conference on CO 2 Capture, Storage, and Utilization, San Diego, California, USA, 

2-4 November 2009. 

G8 Summit 2008, G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit Leaders Declaration, 8 July 2008. 

ICF International 2009, ‘Developing a Pipeline Infrastructure for CO 2 Capture and Storage: Issues and 

Challenges’, prepared for the INGAA Foundation. 

IEA (International Energy Agency) 2008, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, OECD/IEA, France. 

2009, Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage, OECD/IEA, France. 

2010a, CO 2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion: Highlights, OECD/IEA, France. 

2010b, World Energy Outlook: 2010, OECD/IEA, France. 

2010c, CCS Model Regulatory Framework, OECD/IEA, France. 

2010d, Carbon Capture and Storage: legal and regulatory review, Edition 1, OECD/IEA, France. 

2010e, Projected costs of generating electricity, OECD/IEA, France. 

and CSLF (International Energy Agency and Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum) 2010, ‘IEA/CSLF 

Report to the Muskoka 2010 G8 Summit: Carbon Capture and Storage Progress and Next Steps’ Paris: 

OECD/IEA. 

197



IEAGHG R&D (International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development) Programme 2004, 

‘Ship Transport of CO 2 ’, Report Number PH4/30 July 2004. 

Geogreen, and Global CCS Institute 2011, ‘Global Storage Resource Gap Analysis’, report commissioned 

by the Global CCS Institute, in preparation. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2005, ‘Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis’, 

by Solomon, S, Qin, D, Manning, M, Chen, Z, Marquis, M Averyt, KB, Tignor, M and Miller, HL (eds.), 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

2007, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (R.K. Pachauri, and 

A. Reisinger, A. (eds.)) IPCC, Geneva. 

Jagger, M 2010, ‘A comparison of emerging global CCS regulation’, Presentation National CCS Week, 

Melbourne, Australia. 

Kolstad, C and Young, D 2010, Cost Analysis of Carbon Capture and Storage for the Latrobe Valley, Bren 

School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, California. 

Koukouzas, N 2010, ‘General recommendations for the communication for CCS’ presented at How to 

communicate CCS Workshop on 20 May, Amsterdam. 

L.E.K. (L.E.K.Consulting) 2009, ‘An Ideal Portfolio of CCS Projects and Rationale for Supporting Projects 

Report’, report commissioned by the Global CCS Institute, Australia, Canberra, ACT. 

Metz, B, Davidson, O, de Coninck, H, Loos, M and Meyer, L, (eds) 2005, Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, 

IPCC Special Report, Cambridge University Press, UK. 

Moore, ME 2010, ‘CO 2 ¬Commodity and Carbon Drivers and Pricing Trends’, presentation to World Energy 

Council Meeting, Abu Dhabi, 21 January. 

MOST (Ministry of Science and Technology of China) 2010, ‘Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage: 

Development in China’, Ministry of Science and Technology & Department of Social Development. 

NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) 2010, Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and 

Canada, Third Edition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 

Pietzner, K, Schumann, D, Tveldt, S, Naess, R, Torvatn, H, Rainer, D, Anghel, S, Cismaru, D, Constantin, 

C, Daamen, D 2010, ‘Public awareness and perceptions of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS): 

Insights from surveys administered to representative samples in six European countries’, 

Energy Procedia, in press. 

Rubin, ES 2005, ‘The Government Role in Technology Innovation: lessons for the Climate Change policy 

agenda,’ Proc. 10th Biennial Conference on Transportation Energy and Environmental Policy, Institute 

of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, CA. 

Sandman, PM 2003, Responding to Community Outrage: strategies for effective risk communication, 

American Industrial Hygiene Association: Virginia. 

SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineers), AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists), WPC 

(World Petroleum Council), SPEE (Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers) 2007, 

Petroleum Resources Management System, SPE, AAPG, WPC, SPEE, www.spe.org. 

198

APPENDICES 

Stern, N 2007, The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

UK (United Kingdom) Energy and Climate Change Committee, House of Commons 2010, Emissions 

Performance Standards, Volume 1, www.publications.parliament.uk. 

U.S. (United States) Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage 2010, Report of the 

Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, U.S. Interagency Task Force on Carbon 

Capture and Storage, United States. 

Wade, S and Greenberg, S 2009, ‘Afraid to Start Because the Outcome is Uncertain: social site 

characterisation as a tool for informing public engagement efforts’, Greenhouse Gas Control 

Technologies 9 (GHGT-9). 

Wolsink, M 1996, ‘Dutch Wind Power Policy,’ Energy Policy, Vol. 24, Issue 12. 

WorleyParsons, Schlumberger, Baker & McKenzie and EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) 2009, 

‘Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of CCS’, report commissioned by the Global CCS Institute, 

Canberra, Australia. 

WorleyParsons 2011, ‘Economic assessment of carbon capture and storage technologies: 2011 update’, 

report commissioned by the Global CCS Institute, Canberra, Australia, in press. 

199


200

Copyright © GLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE 2011

WWW.GLOBALCCSINSTITUTE.COM 

GLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE LEVEL 2, 64 ALLARA ST, CANBERRA ACT 2601 P +61 (0)2 6175 5300 

GPO BOX 828, CANBERRA ACT 2601 AUSTRALIA E INFO@GLOBALCCSINSTITUTE.COM

The global STaTuS of CCS: 2010 - Global CCS Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?