SPE 86602

CO2 Capture Project: Initial Results

Iain W. Wright/BP, Arthur Lee/ChevronTexaco, Peter Middleton/BP, Cliff Lowe/ChevronTexaco,
Scott W. Imbus/ChevronTexaco, Ivano Miracca/Eni

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

• Develop new technologies, which would reduce
This paper was prepared for presentation at The Seventh SPE International Conference on
Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Calgary,
the cost of capture by:
Alberta, Canada, 29–31 March 2004. o 50% for retro-fit applications and
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of o 75% for new-build applications
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
• Progress those technologies to “proof of concept”
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any stage by the end of 2003
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of • Benchmark that improvement against four real-
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
life scenarios.
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. The capture technologies were broken into three types:
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

1. Post-Combustion
Introduction 2. Pre-Combustion De-Carbonization (hydrogen)
CO2 capture and geological storage could provide a significant 3. Oxyfuel
GreenHouse Gas (GHG) mitigation option if the cost of
capture can be reduced and the public can be assurethat A process flow diagram (Figure 3) illustrates each capture
geological storage is safe, measureable and verifiable. technology.

The CO2 Capture Project (CCP) is a public/private partnership
initiated in 2000 to address the two issues above. Industry
participants are BP, ChevronTexaco, EnCana, Eni, Norsk
Hydro, Shell, Statoil and Suncor. Government funding was
provided by USA, EU and Norway. Project funding was
$50mm over three years (including cash and in-kind
contributions). CCP objectives were to:
• Develop low cost next generation technology, which
achieves the ability to capture and geologically sequester
from industrial turbines, boilers, heaters, and power
generation systems, which emit CO2.
• Determine the key principles and practices to maximize
the volume of CO2, which can be safely sequestered in
geologic formations.
• Develop procedures and guidelines to monitor and verify
storage of CO2 in geologic formations.
• Identify and recommend policies and incentives, which
may enhance economic viability of CO2 capture and
sequestration schemes.
The project timeline is shown in Figure 1.
The project organization chart is shown in Figure 2.
Capture Costs
The specific objectives for the capture teams were:
The four real-life scenarios chosen were:
1. Distributed Gas Turbines in Alaska, USA.
2. A Refinery in the UK, Europe.
3. A Power Station in Norway
4. Petroleum Coke Gasification in Canada
The first two scenarios exist today; the third and fourth would
be new-build. These are described in more detail in Figure 4.
For each scenario, the uncontrolled emissions were established
and a CO2 capture plant was designed, engineered and costed
on a consistent basis, using the current Best Available
Technology (BAT). In the case of the first three scenarios,
BAT was assumed to be the Fluor Econamine FGSM process
and in the case of the petroleum coke gasification, BAT was
assumed to be Selexol. This exercise also established (for
BAT), the volume of CO2 captured and the volume of CO2
avoided (which takes account of secondary emissions from the
capture plant). Obviously, the goal of the project is to
minimize the cost of avoiding CO2 emissions.
To facilitate like-for-like comparison, CO2 avoidance costs for
the full-scale facilities were estimated assuming common
location factors (US Gulf Coast) as well as location-specific
costs. Costs are expressed in absolute terms as well as unitary
(US$ per tonne CO2 avoided) and incremental electricity cost
(US$/KWhr).
2 SPE 86602
Three separate teams worked on each capture technology and
their key findings are outlined below:
Post-Combustion Technologies
Technology Development
Four technologies were sponsored:
1. Electrical Swing Adsorption
2. Cost-Efficient Design and Integration
3. Combination of Kvaerner Membrane Contactor with
the Kansai/Mitsubishi advanced solvent
4. Radical Chemistry
Summary of Results
Post-Combustion technology is mature and the opportunities
for cost breakthrough are limited.
New technologies could reduce the cost of CO2 avoided by
20-30% from the current BAT.
Electrical Swing Adsorption offers no cost saving from BAT.
The combination of the Kvaerner Membrane Contactor with
the Kansai/Mitsubishi advanced solvent has significantly
improved performance and cost, but the total cost of the
system is still too high for meaningful commercial application.
Physical adsorption systems will only be effective if they can
adsorb greater than 40% of their surface area with CO2.
More appropriate design standards could make a significant
contribution to cost reduction.
Pre-Combustion Technologies
The Pre-Combustion De-Carbonization (PCDC) process
removes the carbon from hydrocarbons before combustion, so
that the combustion fuel is hydrogen, which results in a flue
gas containing essentially nitrogen and water. The process is
illustrated in Figure 5. Most of the PCDC development effort
went into processes for making hydrogen and this technology
consumed the bulk of CCP’s capture resources.
The principal advantages of PCDC technology are:
• Conventional solvent absorption processes for CO2
removal are commercially available
• Technology can be retrofited as well as new-build.
• The CO2 can be produced at relatively high pressure,
which aids re-injection.
• Fuel sources can be gas, oil, coke, coal etc.
• The production of hydrogen from fossil fuels is
significantly more cost effective than from renewable
sources, hence PCDC technology could accelerate a
global hydrogen economy.
• The process emits very low SOx and NOx.
The principal dis-advantages of PCDC technology are:
• The hydrocarbon fuel must be converted to syngas
before hydrogen.
• Retrofitting requires major modifications and may
not be cost-effective.
• In order to use hydrogen as fuel, gas turbines, heaters
and boilers must be modified.
CCP sponsored PCDC R&D focused on two main approaches
to reduce cost of CO2 capture:
• Combined reaction and separation
• Integration and standardisation of hydrogen
technologies
Technology Development
Combined Reaction and Separation:
• Sorbent based process
• Sorbent enhanced reaction
• Redox calcium oxide/carbonate system
• Membrane reaction processes
• Membrane water gas shift reaction
o Low temperature H2 membrane separation
o Petroleum coke and gas fed schemes
• Membrane reforming with high temperature H2
membrane separation
Integration and Standardisation:
• Advanced separation for IGCC gasification schemes
• Economy of scale in very large scale autothermal
reforming
• Standardised capture systems for repeat build
• Advanced syngas technologies
Summary of Results
Four new technologies have been developed to Proof of
Concept stage.
Several new technologies could reduce the cost of CO2
avoided by 30-50% from the current BAT.
For existing syngas plants, the incremental cost of avoiding
CO2 emissions could be as low as $12/tonne CO2.
Oxyfuel Technologies
These technologies involve combustion using pure oxygen
(oxyfiring) rather than air. The resultant flue gas is virtually
pure CO2 and H2O, which are relatively easy to separate.
However, this technology is more expensive than the
conventional combustion of fossil fuel because:
1. Additional (cryogenic) equipment is required to
separate oxygen from air,
2. Oxygen burns at much higher temperatures than air,
hence flue gas recycle is required to maintain
acceptable temperature levels in the equipment
(boiler/heater/gas turbine) for today’s metallurgy.
Technology Development
The CCP sponsored development work in five key areas:
1. Boiler Modifications
This study investigated potential savings that could be derived
SPE 86602
by optimization of the boilers for oxyfiring (boilers are more
easily modified for oxyfiring than process heaters). However,
none of the options studied would make a significant
difference to the cost of CO2 capture, so CCP diverted its
resources to other areas.
2. Advanced Thermodynamic Cycles
Oxyfiring produces flame temperatures well beyond current
turbine capabilities. The most obvious way to moderate
combustion temperature is to recycle exhaust gas, (CO2 in the
case of oxyfiring). However, this causes a large reduction in
net power output from the turbine system. Several alternative
power cycles are proposed in the literature, but they would all
require tens of millions of dollars to be spent developing new
turbines, which would take many years and was out-with the
scope of CCP.
3. Novel Technologies for Air Separation
A very promising novel technology for air separation is ionic
transport membranes (ITM). These ceramic membranes,
operate at high temperature (> 700°C) and allow 100%
selectivity to oxygen, which is transferred in anionic form
using oxygen partial pressure ratio between the two sides of
the membrane as driving force.
4. Equipment Integration
The studies above showed that advances can be made
separately for both air separation and oxyfiring, however a
greater prize could probably be gained by integrating the two
steps. Two studies were commissioned by the CCP to assess
the potential for integrating the ion transport air separation
membrane with the combustion process:
1. The Advanced Zero Emission Power (AZEP) would
integrate the membrane with gas turbines
2. The Advanced Boiler concept would integrate the
membrane with boilers
5. Chemical Looping
Chemical Looping is a new combustion technology based on
oxygen transfer from combustion air to the fuel by means of a
metal oxide acting as an oxygen carrier. Central to the
technology is a two fluidized bed reactors system with
continuous circulation of solids, similar to Circulating
Fluidized Boilers (CFB) used for coal combustion. The
reactions are schematically:
Fuel reactor: MeO + CH4 ⇒ Me + 2H2O + CO2
Air reactor: Me + 0.5O2 ⇒ MeO
Summary of Results
For heaters and boilers, oxyfiring with flue gas recycle is a
proven technology that now requires only a full-scale
demonstration to become commercial.
Several new technologies are under development, which could
reduce the cost of CO2 avoided for new-build application by
30 - 50% from the current BAT.
Oxyfiring of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) systems
3
with conventional air separation would require consistent and
very expensive development in the field of gas turbines to
maintain high energy efficiency, given the cost of air
compression and flue gas recycle. At this time, vendors are
not willing to engage in such development without a market.
Oxyfiring significantly reduces NOx emissions from the
combustion process (NOx is usually generated by the high
temperature reaction between nitrogen and oxygen in
conventional air combustion). The additional benefit of NOx
reduction has not been quantified or valued in this phase of the
CCP, but should be taken into consideration for future work.
Oxyfuel technologies will work well in steam generation
scenarios, revamping or replacing existing heaters or boilers,
in the CCP’s UK refinery scenario and for gas turbine power
generation scenarios, like CCP’s Norwegian and Alaskan
scenarios. In the latter case, however, modifications to current
commercial machines are necessary to maintain high
thermodynamic efficiency.
It is unlikely that new boiler designs could significantly reduce
the cost of CO2 capture.
Recommendations for Further Work
Further significant cost reductions may be realized from the
air separation activity, however the novel membrane systems
for oxygen production, currently under development may not
be suitable for the retrofit of existing boiler systems, due to the
incomplete extraction of oxygen from air.
The application of oxyfiring to new-build systems (including
power generation in CCGT) looks very promising and should
be further investigated.
Integrating novel membranes into boilers or gas turbines is
still at an early stage of development, however, it offers
significant potential to reduce capture costs. Development risk
is still high and commercialization is unlikely before 2010.
Chemical Looping technology produces very high purity CO2
and it offers significant cost-reduction opportunities with
reasonable scale-up risks. The next phase of CCP should
explore high-pressure application of chemical looping to
CCGTs.
Some benefits could be derived from the combination of
technologies developed by the Oxyfuel and PCDC programs.
Storage, Monitoring and Verification (SMV)
Relative to capture, the cost of storage is well understood
because there are a large number of CO2 Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) and natural gas storage projects that provide
excellent analogs for the geological storage of CO2. So the
SMV team focused on the relatively unexplored areas of seal
integrity and assurance. The team had two key objectives
• Determine the key principles and practices to maximize
the volume of CO2, which can be safely sequestered in
geologic formations.
4 SPE 86602

• Develop procedures and guidelines to monitor and verify Risk Assessment

storage of CO2 in geologic formations. • Comprehensive Methodologies
o Tools, Scenarios, Models (TNO, INEL)
The principal options for geological storage of CO2 are: o Testing On & Offshore Aquifers (TNO)
o Leakage Risk & Failure Scenarios (INEL)
• Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects • Mitigation & Remediation
• Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs o Leak Scenarios & Response (LBNL)
• Enhanced Coal Bed Methane projects • Environmental / Regulatory / Public Perception
• Deep Saline Aquifers o HSE Review (LBNL)
o Effect on Subsurface Ecosystems (LBNL)
The team split its work into four sections: o Lessons on Honesty & Transparency
1. Integrity (MSCI)
2. Optimization
3. Monitoring Summary of Results
4. Risk Assessment Integrity
Within geological systems, today’s technology can reliably
Technology Development predict which will be competent and which will leak. Key
The following studies were completed: technologies are 4D structural / stratigraphic characterization
of analog systems, reactive transport modelling and geo-
Integrity mechanical modeling.
• Natural & Engineered Analogs
o CO2 Reservoirs (ARI) CO2 can be immobilized in geological formations by several
o Leaky Systems (Utah State) mechanisms:
o Natural Gas Storage Experience (GTI) • Buoyant flow,
• Reservoir & Cap Rock Competence • Solubility
o CO2 / Rock Changes at Reservoir P&T • Relative permeability (hysteresis)
(GFZ-Potsdam) • Brine density convection
• Reactive Transport Modeling (LLNL) • Mineralization
• Well Materials
o Cement / Steel Corrosion / Erosion Several analogs exist for the geological storage of CO2 in
(SINTEF) engineered systems and the natural gas storage industry is a
good example. CO2 storage has several advantages over
Optimization natural gas storage:
• Hydrocarbon Reservoirs
o CO2 EOR Record (NMT) • Natural gas is flammable, but CO2 is not
o Gas & Condensate Compatibility (TTU) • CO2 is an asphyxiant only at high concentrations
• Coal Reservoirs • CO2 is more effectively immobilized than natural gas
o CBM Potential & CO2 Capacity (INEL) due to differences in solubility & density
• Saline Aquifer Reservoirs • CO2 storage will be deeper and more remote from
o CO2 Movement & Immobilization (UT) potable aquifers
• Transportation • The installation & operation of CO2 storage facilities
o Corrosion & Materials Selection (IFE / will involve more safeguards than natural gas
Reinertsen) facilities
o CO2 Impurities (Battelle) • The geological storage of CO2 will be further from
populated areas (which are the market for seasonal
Monitoring natural gas storage)
• Geophysical • CO2 storage will not involve seasonal injection and
o • Seismic Resolution & Modeling (TNO) withdrawal
o • Seismic Resolution & Costs (LBNL)
o • Novel Non-Seismic (LBNL) For the geological storage of CO2, well integrity will present a
• Geochemical greater challenge than the geological features.
o Noble Gas Tracers & Costs (LLNL)
• Satellite & Aerial Optimization
o InSAR Resolution (Stanford) Storage Reservoirs
o Hyperspectral Geobotanical (LLNL) Depleted Oilfields
• Near Surface, Surface & Atmosphere • The survey of the Permian Basin shows that oil
o State-of-the-Art & Strategies (Caltech) response, injectivity and breakthrough are biggest
o Eddy Covariance (Penn State) concerns of that industry. Good quality reservoir
characterization is required and the safety /
SPE 86602
environmental record is good.
• Reservoir models perform well and can predict CO2
breakthrough.
• More work is needed to optimize oil production vs.
ultimate CO2 storage (economic & technical).
Natural Gas / Condensates
• CO2 has a large impact on phase behavior and hence
Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR) and operations.
• The high compressibility of CO2 improves storage
capacity over that of natural gas.
Coal Beds
• Methane content and hence CO2 storage capacity is
difficult to predict. Data from nitrogen flooding data
is useful.
Saline Aquifers
• Increasingly sophisticated simulations can now
predict the long-term status of stored CO2
• Simulation results now converge on the conclusion
that most geologically stored CO2 is immobilized in
the 1000-year timeframe.
Transportation
The current model is based on US transportation of dry CO2
under warm conditions.
Current CO2 transportation practices need to be challenged
given new CO2 storage locations.
A new model has been developed to examine wet CO2 under
cold conditions with associated hydrocarbons.
Corrosion and Materials Selection
Corrosion models for hydrated CO2 at greater than 20 bar are
inadequate. Experiments have shown more data is required.
Corrosion and hydrate inhibitor requirements at various
conditions have been outlined and show possibilities for
alternative pipeline designs.
CO2 Impurities Tradeoffs
Impurities will have a substantial effect on surface equipment
(ie amines, compression requirements and pipeline corrosion).
Impurities have little or no effect on injectivity or reservoir
performance
Monitoring
Geophysical
• Seismic modeling will initially be required to test the
resolution of alternative tools to different venues.
• Cost-effective non-sesimic techniques could stand
alone or with others (seismic & non-seismic)
• Borehole gravity techniques may be effective for up
to one reservoir thickness
• Electromagnetic techniques could detect very small
anomalies, especially when used with borehole
gravity
• Spontaneous Potential is a low cost approach that
deserves further investigation
GeochemicaI
• Noble Gas Tracers could be very effective. Proper
selection may provide cost-effective performance and
5
leakage monitoring
• Other geochemical techniques (soil, water) need
further development
Satellite & Aerial
• Preliminary work suggests that this system could
deliver the resolution necessary to detect injection-
induced ground movement
Hyperspectral Geobotanical
• Very effective in heavily vegetated areas with high,
persistent CO2 flux using “botanical bands”
• Application in arid areas with lower or intermittent
CO2 will require use of “mineral bands”
Near Surface Detectors
• This technique requires an assessment of monitoring
instrumentation given site-specific parameters
available
• Diffuse leak detection may have to rely on other
techniques (e.g. soil gas collection)
• Point source leak detection is cost-effective using
open-path approach
• The eddy covariance method is well established for
CO2 flux detection
Verification will demand more rigorous monitoring design and
quantification (e.g., mass balance).
Risk Assessment
Comprehensive Methodologies
• Scenario development is sound and FEP database
comprehensive
• Individual system components tested successfully but
whole system testing will come later (natural gas
seep; on-/off-shore aquifer)
• Fundamental data is now available on coal properties
and what can be learned from nitrogen flooding
• Consequence analysis on individual elements of
system was successful
• Practical information on well placement relative to
outcrops and water table is now available
Near Surface Techniques
• EOR & Natural Gas Storage Have Excellent HSE
Records
• Scenario development and simulations are now
comprehensive and credible
• Development of modeling package interface will
allow broad application
Mitigation / Remediation
• A comprehensive, generic classification of leakage
scenarios has been carried out
• Remediation solutions have been well thought-out
and will comprise basis for future R&D
6 SPE 86602
Environmental / Regulatory / Public Perception
• Several independent comprehensive methodologies
provide enhanced credibility
• Scenario development, Features, Events and
Processes (FEP) database and calculation tools may
make a major contribution
• The CCP remediation study is the first of its kind and
provides the opportunity to draw on existing
technology and scope for further technology
development
Recommendations for Further Work
Four themes are recommended:
Risk-Based Approach to Safe and Effective Management
of CO2 Storage
Develop generic methodologies and protocols to assess
suitability of prospective storage venues in terms of
physical integrity, optimization of operations, performance
monitoring and whole system risk assessment and
mitigation. Carry out case studies (onshore/offshore oil/gas
fields, coal & aquifers).
Identify “Ideal” CO2 Storage Venue(s)
Leverage natural features and operations experience of
subsurface injection projects to identify ideal storage
venues for CO2 storage. Case studies might include
depleted oil / gas (incl. EOR, EGCR), coal (incl. ECBM) &
aquifers.
Ensure Availability of Tools, Technologies and
Competencies for CO2 Storage
Identification of critical technologies and interdisciplinary
competencies needed to initiate, conduct and divest from
CO2 storage projects. Target capabilities gaps for further
development.
Establish an International Test Facility for CO2 Storage
Select a venue suitable for testing CO2 storage performance,
monitoring and mitigation. Ideally, the test facility would be
well-characterized, have existing infrastructure, possess
diverse reservoirs features and potential migration conduits
and lack stringent environmental sensitivities.
Policies and Incentives
The CCP has developed new technologies to reduce the cost
of CCS as a GHG mitigation technique. However, it is
unlikely that the technique will be widely used until
appropriate regulations are in-place at a national and
international level. CCP reviewed current regulations.
The specific objectives for the Policies and Incentives team
were to identify and recommend policies and incentives,
which may enhance economic viability of CO2 capture and
sequestration schemes. The team reported that the policy and
regulatory aspects of CCS are at an early stage, but that during
2003, a clear forward momentum has been developed in
several national and international government organizations.
International
Currently, only one set of international regulations may apply
to CCS and this was intended to prevent the dumping of waste
in the sea, rather than the geological storage of a GreenHouse
Gas. Clarification of the detailed provisions of these
regulations is required.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is the most significant international marine
convention. It is an international framework document
concerning activities at sea. UNCLOS relies on other marine
treaties (subject specific and regional treaties, agreed upon by
UNCLOS State Parties) to provide more detailed regulations.
In other words, UNCLOS is an overarching convention, which
leaves precise rules to be elaborated in other more specific
international conventions. In the case of marine pollution,
these rules are contained in the 1972 London Convention. This
anticipates the creation of regional agreements to further their
objectives: the most relevant regional agreement to this study
is the Oslo/Paris (OSPAR) Convention, which is applicable
only to Europe’s North Sea.
Two significant new efforts have recently emerged:
1. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (UN IPCC) has requested a Special
Report on CCS Capture and Storage. This report is
now in preparation and a final draft is expected in the
first half of 2005.
2. The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum is a new
initiative, which aims to improve CCS technologies
by coordinating research and development with
international partners and industry. The Carbon
Sequestration Leadership Forum is a ministerial-level
organization. The member countries are the United
States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia,
India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russian Federation,
Norway, the UK and the European Union.
Three types of cooperation are currently envisioned
within the framework of the Forum: data gathering,
information exchange, and joint projects. Data
gathered from participating countries will be
aggregated, summarized, and distributed to all
participants. Member countries will identify joint
projects, with the Forum serving as a mechanism for
bringing together government and private sector
representatives from member countries.
National
In general, at a national level, regulations developed for
protection of aquifers and development of oil and gas and
mining facilities apply to CCS development, however recent
initiatives and incentives, which are specific to CCS have
started in Europe and Canada:
In the UK, a government “White Paper” on Energy
Policy recognizes the need for investing in CCS. The
CO2 Capture and Storage Feasibility Study Advisory
Group published its first study. This is a significant
SPE 86602 7

step for CCS in the UK and makes recommendations

for the long-term implementation of the technology.

In the Netherlands, a new Electricity Act came into

force on with tax exemptions for GHG mitigation
techniques, including CCS.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a new program

will promote the development of a CO2 enhanced
oil/gas recovery industry by providing royalty credits
to offset a portion of costs in approved CCS projects.

Conclusions
Capture and geological storage could provide a significant
option for GHG mitigation.

The technology required for CCS is also required as a bridge

to the hydrogen economy.

CCS can develop as a GHG mitigation technique when

sources (of CO2) and sinks can be cost-effectively connected.

The greatest cost associated with CCS from dilute sources will
be the cost of capture (separation from the diluant).

Detailed results and all technical reports are available on the

CCP website: www.co2captureproject.org.
8 SPE 86602

Figure 1: Project Timeline

start-up phase delivery of results

• CCP agreement • Funding secured • Over 80 contracts • Optimum technology
250
• Funding applications• Contract negotiations signed options progressed to
commence • Program focused thru proof of feasibility
200 value management
No of Technology Options

Number of technology options focused

>200 Technologies Tech teams screen tech based on Screening Criteria:
150 Reviewed options & recommend • Likelihood of success in timeframe
detailed evaluation of • Ability to deliver target cost
promising candidates reductions
• Materiality to Participants’ sources
100 • Fit within available funding

Screening favored
?30 Capture & 50 storage
technologies
Techs Screened
50 50 Techs Pass Stage Gate ?

0 Review & Evaluation Analysis Broad Tech Development Focused Tech Development
Apr 2000 Aug 2000 Sep 2001 Dec 2002 Dec 2003

Figure 2: Project Organization Chart

¾CO2 Capture Project

¾Executive Board

¾Technical
¾Advisory
¾Program
¾Board
¾Manager

¾Storage, ¾Common
¾Pre ¾Post ¾Policy & ¾Commu-
¾Oxyfuel ¾Monitoring & ¾Economic
¾Combustion ¾Combustion ¾Incentives ¾nications
¾Verification ¾Modelling

¾Media -
¾Technology Providers ¾NGO/
¾TV, Print,
¾Universities, National Laboratories, Engineering Consultants, Specialists ¾Outreach
¾Internet
SPE 86602 9

Figure 3: CO2 Capture Processes

Sky Sky
N2
O2

Amine CO2
Absorption

Post Combustion Air

Power & Heat • Enhanced Oil
CO2
Decarbonisation Recovery

• Enhanced Coal
Precombustion Reformer H2
N2 O2 CO2 Bed Methane
Decarbonisation + CO2 Sep
Air
Power & Heat Compression
& Dehydration • Old Oil/Gas
CO2 Fields
Oxyfuel Power & Heat
• Saline
O2 Formations
N2
Air Air Separation Unit

Fossil Fuel

Figure 4: CCP Real-Life Scenarios

Scenario Location Fuel Retrofit/ Uncontrolled CO2

Source Newbuild Emission Content
(mmtpa CO2) (%)

Distributed Gas Alaska, Natural

Retrofit 2.1 3%
Turbines USA Gas

Natural
Refinery UK, Europe Gas & Retrofit 4.0 8%
Liquids

Large Gas Natural

Norway Newbuild 1.2 5%
Turbines Gas

Petroleum Coke
Canada Coke Newbuild 7.4 10.5%
Gasification
10 SPE 86602

Figure 5: Pre-Combustion Decarbonization

PCDC Process Diagram

H2 O H2O CO2

Fuel Syngas H2, CO Water-gas H2, CO2 CO2 H2

generation CO2, H2O shift removal

O2

Air Air N2
Separation

Figure 6: CO2 Storage Scenarios