Global Status Css Final

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 third-
party 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
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 fill 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 benefits of CCS and the role it plays within a portfolio of
low-carbon technologies.
• Assist projects: Bridge knowledge gaps between demonstration efforts, and tackle specific 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.
Significant 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 7 CCS costs 114

7.1 Scope of the chapter 116
Executive Summary 8
7.2 The purpose of cost estimates 116
7.4 Industrial sectors 124
1 Introduction 14
7.5 Relative uncertainty across cost studies 125
1.1 The challenge 15
1.2 The need 16 8 Regional CCS knowledge-sharing initiatives 128
1.3 The response 18 8.1 Scope of the chapter 130
1.4 This report 20 8.2 Why knowledge sharing? 130
8.3 The case for effective knowledge sharing 132
2 Policy frameworks and public financial support 22
8.4 Sharing knowledge from CCS demonstration
2.1 Scope of the chapter 25 projects 132
2.2 Mechanisms for public financial support 26 8.5 Levels of sharing and understanding stakeholders 134
2.3 Status of direct public financial support to 8.6 Knowledge-sharing mechanisms and tools 136
CCS projects 30 8.7 Challenges for knowledge sharing 138
3 CCS projects 38 8.8 Conclusion 138
3.1 Scope of the chapter 40 9 CCS public engagement 140
3.2 Framework for analysis of CCS projects 40 9.1 Scope of the chapter 142
3.3 An overview of large-scale integrated CCS 9.2 Key themes in CCS public engagement 143
projects (LSIPs) 48 9.3 Key public engagement example: Barendrecht 147
4 CO2 storage 74 9.4 Public engagement guideline resources 148
9.5 Snapshot of public engagement CCS case studies 149
4.2 Recent progress in storage 76 Appendices 152
4.3 Issues and challenges for CO2 storage 82 Appendix A Country summary of policy frameworks and public
4.4 Types of storage, their characteristics funding awarded to CCS projects 153
and current status 87 Appendix B The asset lifecycle model 171
5 CO2 networks for CCS 92 Appendix C Tables 173
Appendix D References 196
5.2 Incentives and risks for a network approach 96
5.3 Status of CO2 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
2
TABLES FIGURES
Table 1 Public financial support mechanisms for Figure 1 Global CO2 emissions 15
CCS projects 27 Figure 2 Stationary energy-related CO2 emissions
Table 2 Major public financial support programs for from 2004-2007 16
large-scale demonstration projects 32 Figure 3 Global CO2 emissions and GHG emissions
Table 3 Technology maturity categories by industry 45 reductions 17
Table 4 Active CCS LSIPs 49 Figure 4 Projected sector CCS contribution in 2050 18
Table 5 LSIPs in cement, iron and steel, and pulp Figure 5 Technology cycle 24
and paper industries 64 Figure 6 Government CCS funding initiatives from
Table 6 LSIPs by region, by technology and by industry 70 2005 to 2010 31
Table 7 G8 criteria 71 Figure 7 Public funding support commitments to CCS
Table 8 Broad definitions of traffic light 72 by country 34
Table 9 Storage – the key questions that must be Figure 8 Public funding allocations by country 35
addressed for any geo-storage candidate 87 Figure 9 Public funding allocated to large-scale projects 36
Table 10 Types of geological storage and current status 88 Figure 10 Asset lifecycle model 41
Table 11 CO2 network initiatives related to CCS 99 Figure 11 All active and planned projects by asset
Table 12 United States jurisdictions with advanced lifecycle in 2009 and 2010 42
CCS regulation 109 Figure 12 All active and planned projects by industry
Table 13 Comparing costs for emerging IGCC projects 117 sector and by asset lifecycle stage 43
Table 14 Summary of recently completed CCS design Figure 13 All active and planned projects by industry
cost studies 119 sector and by region 43
Table 15 Storage site scenario assumptions and Figure 14 Newly identified active or planned projects
outcomes 124 in 2010 by industry sector and by region 44
Table 16 Incremental cost of CCS for industrial processes 125 Figure 15 All active and planned projects by industry
sector and by technology maturity 45
Table 17 Types of CCS knowledge 131
Figure 16 All active or planned projects by industry
Table 18 Snapshot of public engagement case studies 150
sector and level of integration 47
Table A-1 Public funding awarded to large-scale projects
Figure 17 LSIPs by asset lifecycle in 2009 and 2010 48
in the power sector 166
Figure 18 Change in LSIP project status from
Table A-2 Public funding awarded to industrial,
2009 to 2010 by region 51
large-scale CCS demonstration projects 169
Table C-1 Technical maturity definitions by industry 173
2009 to 2010 by asset lifecycle stage 51
Table C-2 LSIPs by asset lifecycle stage 175
Table C-3 Cancelled or delayed LSIPs 188 2009 to 2010 by industry sector 52
Table C-4 Traffic light definitions used to classify LSIPs Figure 21 Change in LSIP project status from
against the G8 criteria 189 2009 to 2010 by capture type 52
Table C-5 Recent country/regional screening assessments 190 Figure 22 Change in LSIP project status from
Table C-6 Initiatives for establishing new CO2 networks 2009 to 2010 by storage type 52
for CCS 191 Figure 23 LSIPs by industry sector, storage type
Table C-7 LSIPs building on existing CO2 infrastructure and location 59
for EOR 194 Figure 24 LSIPs in North America by industry sector
and storage type 60
3
Figure 25 LSIPs in Europe by industry sector and Figure 51 Comparing and contrasting IGCC capture costs 127
storage type 61 Figure 52 Benefits of effective knowledge sharing 132
Figure 26 LSIPs by region or country by asset lifecycle Figure A-1a Australian funding program summary
stage 62 – Federal funding 153
Figure 27 LSIPs: amount of potentially stored CO2 Figure A-1b Australian funding program summary
per annum by region 62 – State funding 153
Figure 28 LSIPs: Potentially stored CO2 per annum Figure A-2 Public funding committed to large-scale
by industry sector 63 demonstration projects in Australia 155
Figure 29 LSIPs by capture type 64 Figure A-3a Canadian funding program summary
Figure 30 LSIPs in planning and Execute stages: potentially – Federal funding 156
stored CO2 per annum by capture type 65 Figure A-3b Canadian funding program summary
Figure 31 LSIPs with pipelines for transport by known – Provincial funding 156
pipeline length 66 Figure A-4 Public funding committed to large-scale
Figure 32 LSIPs by storage type 66 demonstration projects in Canada 157
Figure 33 LSIPs by storage type and asset lifecycle stage 67 Figure A-5 European Union funding program summary 158
Figure 34 LSIPs: potentially stored CO2 per annum by Figure A-6 Public funding committed to large-scale
country and storage type 67 demonstration projects in the European Union 159
Figure 35 Summary of LSIPs against traffic light system Figure A-7 Japanese funding program summary 160
by each G8 criterion 73 Figure A-8 Republic of Korea funding program summary 160
Figure 36 The number of G8 criteria met by the LSIPs Figure A-9 Norwegian funding program summary 161
by asset lifecycle 73
Figure A-10 United Kingdom funding program summary 162
Figure 37 World geological storage suitability 77
Figure A-11 United States funding program summary 163
Figure 38 Status of country-scale screening assessments 79
Figure A-12 Public funding committed to CCS in the
Figure 39 IEAGHG R&D Programme proposed United States 164
classification system for evaluating CO2
Figure A-13 Public funding committed to large-scale
storage resource/capacity estimates 81
demonstration CCS projects in the
Figure 40 Schematic cash outflow undiscounted United States 165
– onshore storage only 3Mtpa 86
Figure 41 Existing and planned CO2 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
4
UNITS, ABBREVIATIONS, GLOSSARY

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT TERM DESCRIPTION
UNITS ACCA21 The Administrative Centre for China’s
Giga 9
10 (billion or ‘billion times’) Agenda 21
Mega 106 (million or ‘million times’) Active Project If a project is under construction (Execute
Stage) or in operation (Operate stage)
Kilo 103 (thousand or ‘thousand times’)
ANLEC R&D Australian National Low Emission Coal
Micro (μ) 10-6 (‘one millionth of’) Research & Development
EMISSIONS ARPA-E Advanced Research Projects Agency -
ppm parts per million Energy
ppmv parts per million volume ARRA American Recovery Reinvestment Act
Gt Gigatonnes CAGS China-Australia Geographic Storage
Gt CO2 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide Cancelled project Cancelled projects are those that have
ceased activities prior to fulfilling their
Gt CO2e Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
intent and have no intention of resuming.
ENERGY These can occur at any stage of the
GJ Giga joules asset lifecycle.
kW kilowatt Capex Capital expenditure
kWh kilowatt hour CCS Carbon capture and storage
MW Megawatt CCSR CCS ready
MWe Megawatts electrical capacity; electric CCUS Carbon capture, use and storage
output in Megawatts CDIAC Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis
MWh Megawatt hour Center
MASS CDM Clean Development Mechanism
kt kilotonnes CHG China Huaneng Group

CLEAN China Low-Carbon Energy Action Network
Mt Megatonnes or million tonnes
CMC Carbon Management Canada Inc.
Mtpa Megatonnes or million tonnes
per annum CMP Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol (CMP) is the Supreme decision-
Mtpa CO2 Megatonnes or million tonnes
making body of the Kyoto Protocol.
per annum of carbon dioxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
tpa tonnes per annum
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DISTANCE
CO2CRC Cooperative Research Centre for
km kilometre
Greenhouse Gas Technologies
MONETARY
COP Conference of Parties is the supreme
$ million (m) million dollars body of the UNFCCC, which meets once
$ billion (bn) billion dollars (1,000 x $ million) a year to review the Convention. The word
‘conference’ used to mean ‘association’
$ trillion trillion dollars (1,000,000 x $ million)
rather than ‘meeting’.
PERMEABILITY
COP16 The 16th Conference of Parties of the
mD millidarcy (μm2 x10-3) 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 Department of Energy and Climate IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
Change (United Kingdom) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Delayed project Delayed projects are those that have Change
had activities postponed and, for all JCCS Japan CCS Company
intents and purposes, stalled relative to
KEPCO Korea Electric Power Corporation
the project schedule. These projects are
planned to resume at some point if more LCHG Low-carbon, high growth
favourable conditions develop and can LCOE Levelised Cost of Electricity
occur at any stage of the asset lifecycle. LHV Lower Heating Value
DoE Department of Energy (United States) LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
EC European Commission London Protocol 1996 Protocol to the Convention on
EDF Environmental Defense Fund the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
EEPR European Energy Programme for Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
Recovery LSIP Large-scale integrated project
EOR Enhanced oil recovery MEF Major Economies Forum on Energy and
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (United Climate
States) MENA Middle East and North Africa
EPC Engineer, procure and construct METI The Ministry of Economy, Trade and
EPS Environmental Performance Standard Industry (Japan)
ERCB Energy Resources Conservation Board MMV Measurement, monitoring and verification
ETIS Energy Technology Innovation Strategy NER300 Name of the financing instrument
managed jointly by the European
EU European Union
Commission, European Investment
FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office Bank and Member States, so-called
(United Kingdom) because Article 10(a) 8 of the revised
FEED Front-end engineering and design Emissions Trading Directive 2009/29/
FGD Flue gas desulphurisation EC contains the provision to set aside
300 million allowances (rights to emit
FID Final investment decision
one tonne of carbon dioxide) in the
G8 Group of Eight consisting of France, New Entrants’ Reserve of the European
Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Emissions Trading Scheme for subsidising
United Kingdom and the United States installations of innovative renewable
GHG Greenhouse gas energy technology and carbon capture
Greenfields For CO2 storage, it refers to geological and storage (CCS).
formations where no hydrocarbon NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory
production has occurred within the NGCC Natural gas combined cycle
potential storage area.
NGO Non-governmental organisation
For CO2 capture, it refers to new facilities NPF National Planning Framework
where none previously existed.
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
HECA Hydrogen Energy California
O&M 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 (CO2) 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. Efficiently and effectively managing the risks of climate change requires reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2.
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 CO2 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-fired
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
(CO2e) concentrations in the atmosphere are to be stabilised at 450 parts per million by 2050 (with CO2
concentrations stabilised at less than 400 parts per million). CCS refers to a range of technologies that aim
to capture the CO2 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 CO2 use in enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) has a long history, it requires enhancements in the measurement, monitoring and verification of CO2
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 large-
scale 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 CO2. 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-of-
a-kind projects that initiate technology deployment. While knowledge-sharing initiatives are increasing, there
is still room for greater cooperation.
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 CO2 storage;
• understanding and improving the large-scale application of CCS;
• increasing specific 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 CO2 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 significantly 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 specific 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 specific 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 identified across a range of
technologies, project types and sectors. This is a net increase of 21 projects identified 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
CO2 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 final investment decision is possible.
Two large-scale projects have commenced construction since the previous Status Report: the Southern
Company Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) project in the United States, which will be the world’s
first 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 financial 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 CO2 for EOR to improve project commerciality. The prospect of additional revenues
from the sale of CO2 to third parties can act as an ‘enabler’ to the deployment of carbon capture technology
in new applications. CO2-EOR systems also have the potential to provide a knowledge base to build upon for
the broader demonstration of CO2 storage projects.
Europe has 21 LSIPs, though projects appear to be moving at a slightly slower pace than in North America.
This in part reflects the longer timeframes associated with Europe’s key CCS funding mechanism, the
NER300 program, as well as uncertain economic conditions. European projects also face significant
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 significant CCS projects in China, where five LSIPs have been identified, 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 (CO2 injection projects
associated mainly with offshore gas field developments) and projects associated with the capture of CO2
from power stations and industrial facilities.
There are currently no LSIPs identified 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 CO2 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 site-
specific 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
significantly 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 CO2 ranges from US$60-85/tonne of CO2 for coal based power stations and
exceeds US$100/tonne for a gas-fired 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 reflect scale, technology selection and design issues, among other factors.
However, without access to detailed project specific information, project based costs provide limited guidance
on underlying technology costs.
In addition to the uncertainty around final CCS investment costs for power, there is high variability
across regions, reflecting 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 CO2 from other industrial processes has not been investigated to the
extent undertaken for power generation. However, as CO2 separation already occurs in gas processing
and some chemical industries (such as fertiliser production), the additional costs incurred reflect 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
CO2 for natural gas processing and ammonia production to around US$55/tonne of CO2 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 efficiently 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 profile, 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 difficult
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 specific 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As current initiatives represent a significant commitment of public and private resources, funders are
looking to maximise the benefits 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 significant progress during 2009 and 2010 in defining 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 CO2 and improve the
performance of CO2 capture technologies.
14
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The challenge

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Technical
Assessment Report (2007) contains three important findings 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 significant 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 (CO2).
In 2010, the Earth System Research Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration recorded the level of global CO2 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 CO2 at 2.32ppm per year.
Figure 1 Global CO2 emissions
CO2 parts per million 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
390
380
370
360
350
340
330
Average monthly CO2 levels
Trend CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 emissions from the stationary energy sector (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Stationary energy-related CO2 emissions from 2004-2007
Gt CO2 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.
This trend seems likely to continue into the future due to the need to ensure energy security and
maintain economic resilience.
1.2 The need

To limit climate change, emissions need to be reduced significantly.
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 CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) by 2050.
As of 2008, global energy emissions accounted for 41 per cent of total emissions. Stabilising CO2
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 efficiency, 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 efficiency 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
1 INTRODUCTION
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 CO2 or 19 per cent of the reduction in energy emissions by 2050 (Figure 3).
Figure 3 Global CO2 emissions and GHG emissions reductions
Gt CO2 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Baseline emissions 57Gt

60
55 19%
50
17%
45
6%
40 5%
35 15%
30
25 38%
20
15
BLUE Map1 emissions 14Gt
10
5
0 WEO 2009 450 ppm case ETP2010 analysis
CCS Power generation efficiency and fuel switching

Renewables End-use fuel switching
Nuclear End-use fuel and electricity efficiency
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-firing 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 CO2-intensive industries such as
cement, chemical, and iron and steel.
This represents substantial challenges for CCS over the next four decades as:
• CO2 flow 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

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-specific issues
and broader issues under the UNFCCC.
UNFCCC and carbon pricing

Positive outcomes were delivered for CCS at COP16. The UNFCCC’s main scientific advisory
body, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific 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).
18
1 INTRODUCTION
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 sufficiently support the
innovation process for CCS technology. Investments in innovation generate knowledge that spills
over to other firms and users reducing the returns to innovators and incentives for private firms
to marshal sufficient resources to fully and efficiently support all innovation activities, including
demonstration processes. The absence of public funding leads to underinvestment and a slower,
less efficient 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 significant uncertainty about the long-term future. Public financing 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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.
CO2 network and storage

As a large-scale mitigation solution, CCS requires a CO2 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, objective-
based 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 CO2 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 financial 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
1 INTRODUCTION
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 ‘CO2 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 CO2 capture plants and common
user infrastructure will increasingly depend on access to suitable storage solutions.
Chapter 5 entitled ‘CO2 networks for CCS’ gives an account of the status of CO2 networks for
advancing CCS. This includes proposals for establishing new networks specifically for CCS,
as well as leveraging off the existing CO2 infrastructure for EOR in North America. Overall,
the benefits of a ‘network’ approach is influencing a significant 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.
Specifically, 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 80 per cent 77 per cent

in direct government funding has of all confirmed funding of government funding directed
been announced for the development announcements have targeted, to large-scale CCS demonstration
of CCS since 2005, of which around or are targeting large-scale projects was allocated to power
US$14 billion has been allocated to CCS demonstration projects generation projects.
specific CCS projects and research exclusively.
and development activities.
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
specific CCS projects. Up to US$21 billion is expected to be allocated in the next couple of years.
• Almost 90 per cent of all confirmed 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 specifically 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.
• Significant 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 gasification (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 post-
combustion (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 influenced 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 CO2
‘hub’; and
• injecting CO2 to undertake enhanced hydrocarbon recovery in conjunction with permanent
geological storage.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions most efficiently 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 sufficient 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 Demonstration and Increased adoption
products or processes initial use
Source: Rubin (2005)
24
CCS policy ‘frameworks’ define 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 CO2 storage, this includes providing incentives for
early-stage, large-scale CCS demonstration projects in the Adoption phase. These incentives
include direct financial 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-specific
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 financial
support to CCS projects; and
• a global summary of the level and types of direct financial 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 specific projects.
More specific details and analysis on the most active countries in making public financial
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 financial support mechanisms to offset some of the cost constraints
and risks faced by private developers undertaking large-scale, first-of-a-kind demonstrations.
These mechanisms fall into two broad categories (Table 1):
• input-based support mechanisms – that provide financial support in setting up and running
CCS projects and infrastructure, regardless of the outcome in terms of successfully stored
CO2; and
• performance-based support mechanisms – that provide financial support based on the
successful storage of CO2, or based on delivering a product (e.g. generating electricity) while
storing CO2.
The mechanisms summarised in Table 1 are oriented towards a ‘mixed-funding’ engagement
model where governments have a shared role in the financial 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 finances a project.
26
Table 1 Public financial support mechanisms for CCS projects

CATEGORY TYPE DESCRIPTION
Input-based Direct capital • Government provides upfront payments to cover part of the capital
support grants costs in designing, planning, testing, and constructing a CCS project.
mechanisms • Payments can be tied to milestones at different stages of execution
before operation.
Equity/ownership • Government provides full or partial equity financing for a CCS project.
position 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 CO2 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.
Debt financing • 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.
Operating cost • Annual payments to subsidise operating costs.
subsidies • While not necessarily pre-set, these payments are not directly tied
to performance.
Tax measures • 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
Performance- Standard storage • The government provides a pre-established subsidy that is paid per
based support payments unit of CO2 successfully stored. Payments could flow to the capture
mechanisms or storage developer.
Contract for • The government provides payments to developers per unit of CO2
differences 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.
Bonus and • Similar to a contract for difference, where a CCS project would get a
malus regimes ‘bonus’ payment per unit of CO2 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.
• In parallel, a ‘malus’ penalty payment is imposed per unit of CO2
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.
Feed-in-tariffs • 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.
Power purchase • The government (or a regulated electricity wholesaler) enters into a
agreements 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.
Tax measures • 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 Gasification 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 CO2 stored, as well as the Alberta (Canada) CO2 Projects
Royalty Credit Program that reduced royalty payments for a set of CO2-EOR pilot projects.
Public financial support for CCS can also be provided more indirectly through debt financing
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 gasification
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 CO2 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-fired 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 refineries 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 financial support measures. For example, the Taylorville IGCC
project benefited 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 reflects 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 significant 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 billion1 in direct public financial
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 financial support for CCS slowed significantly in 2010 to around
US$850 million. This follows a five-year period where new funding announcements specific
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 reflects announcements of major ‘flagship’ 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 financial crisis funded a significant 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 funding4 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.
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 specific 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.
30
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-specific 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 financial 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$3.4 billion) in additional support.
Figure 6 Government CCS funding initiatives from 2005 to 20106
US$bn 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
25
20
15
10
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
POLICY GOVERNMENT PROJECTS
COUNTRY INITIATIVE FUNDING MODEL COMMENTS SUPPORTED7
Australia CCS Flagships AU$1.8bn Under Four projects shortlisted and
Program (US$1.76bn) negotiation awarded funds for pre-feasibility
studies. 2-4
Federal funding to be matched
by state governments and industry.
Canada Clean Energy CAD$610m Capital grant Three projects selected included
Fund (US$603m) only in Alberta CCS Fund.
Alberta CCS CAD$2bn Capital grant Up to 75% of pre-agreed
Fund (US$1.97bn) with milestones incremental costs
and opex • <40% capex at achievement
subsidy of milestones
• <20% on commencement
5
of operations
• >40% during operation, over
ten years
SaskPower CAD$240m Capital grant Special transfer from the Federal
Boundary (US$237.3m) only to the Saskatchewan Government
Dam Project for the SaskPower Dam large-scale
demonstration project.
European European €1bn Capital • Up to 80% of eligible costs
Union Energy (US$1.3bn) grant with (pre-financing, up to 40% as
Programme milestones and interim payment and balance
6
for Recovery sequestration on completion).
payment • Additional funding per tonne
abated in first five years.
NER300 €2-2.3bn8 To be negotiated • Financing of 50% of relevant
Program (US$2.65- costs.
3.05bn) • First tranche of eight CCS
projects and 34 renewable 8
energy projects.
• All funds to be committed
by 2015.
Netherlands Government €150m Capital grant • Payment conditioned to
Subsidy for (US$198.9m) and opex meeting storage volume targets.
1
ROAD project subsidy with • Payment over ten years.
milestones
Norway Test Centre US$1bn Government Government participation through
Mongstad & industry the state-owned company
full scale CCS partnership Gassnova SF, with annual 1
project allocations from the national
Norwegian budget.
7
Large-scale integrated demonstration projects.
8
The total amount to be awarded under the European Union’s NER300 Decision has a range based on uncertainty regarding the prices
that the special auction of emissions permits under the European Emissions Trading System will be able to achieve.
32
Table 2 Major public financial support programs for large-scale demonstration projects
POLICY GOVERNMENT PROJECTS
COUNTRY INITIATIVE FUNDING MODEL COMMENTS SUPPORTED7
South CCS Test US$648.4m Government In support of research,
Korea Programme industry development and deployment 2
partnership activities for two projects.
United CCS GBP£1bn Capital grant, • Capex support at achievement
Kingdom Demonstration (US$1.58bn) opex subsidy of milestones.
Competition and claw back • Operational support per tonne (1)
mechanisms abated.
• ‘Claw back’/CFD mechanism.
4
CCS Electricity GBP£5.6- To be negotiated Consideration is being given to
Levy (Second 7.1bn raising funds to support three
Phase of CCS (US$8.84- additional CCS demonstration
(3)
Demonstration 11.22bn) projects in the United Kingdom,
Competition) including capex and opex, through
an electricity levy.
United Clean Coal US$1.7bn Capital grant • Up to 50% pre-agreed
States Power with milestones incremental CCS costs.
Initiative and opex • No more than 50% contribution
subsidy during each phase of the project.
FutureGen US$1.0bn Government Cost-sharing arrangement between
industry governments and industry partners.
partnership
Industrial US$1.43bn Capital grants Federal grants for demonstration
Carbon and research projects with CO2
Capture and capture from industrial sources
Storage 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.
10
Power Sector US$3.15bn Federal Tax credits of 15-30 per cent for
and Industrial investment tax IGCC and advanced combustion
Gasification credits facilities in the power and industrial
Tax Credits gasification sectors with CCS, up to
a maximum amount. To date ten
projects have applied for and been
accepted to receive the credit.
Carbon US$1.0bn Federal tax Tax credit for each metric tonne of
Sequestration credit qualified CO2 captured and stored
Tax Credit or used in EOR. Overall limit of 75
million tonnes of CO2, 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 specific 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 specific 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 specific 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 financial
commitments to CCS to specific 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$1.8 billion) CCS Flagships Program are also yet to be
announced, although four projects were short-listed for pre-feasibility studies in December 2009.
Similarly, the selection process for the first round of the United Kingdom’s CCS Demonstration
Competition is nearing completion,
Figure 7 Public funding support commitments to CCS by country10
US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
United States 6.1 2.6
Australia 0.9 4
European Union 1.3 3.1
Canada 3 0.3
United Kingdom 1.6 10
Norway 1.3
South Korea 0.8
Japan 0.4
Netherlands 0.2
Allocated
Unallocated
UK CCS Electricity Levy
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.
10
The United Kingdom CCS Electricity Levy’s value used in this figure 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).
34
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
European Union
Norway
Australia
South Korea
Japan
Netherlands
United Kingdom
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$1 billion, the greatest amount of funding
(Figure 9).
An overview of the public funds that have recently been granted to large-scale CCS demonstration
projects in the power generation sector and other industries is presented in Tables A-1 and A-2
(Appendix A). More details regarding the advancement of large-scale demonstration projects are
provided in the ‘CCS projects’ chapter of this report (Chapter 3).
35
Figure 9 Public funding allocated to large-scale projects11
Support (US$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-212
Korea CCS-112
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 77 65
active or planned CCS projects of these are large-scale large-scale demonstration projects
have been identified across a range integrated projects. are in various stages of development
of technologies, project types and planning (those stages of the asset
sectors. lifecycle prior to a final investment
decision).
KEY MESSAGES
• Project activity has been significant during the past year, with the number of newly identified projects
being offset by delays and cancellations. In 2010, 234 active or planned CCS projects have been
identified 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 final investment decision).
• All eight operating LSIPs and the four in execution are linked to the oil and gas sector: they either
capture CO2 via natural gas processing, or they inject CO2 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 identified 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 CO2 capture using oxyfuel combustion.
• The transport of CO2 for LSIPs is dominated by pipelines. Potential storage of CO2 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 verification of injected CO2 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 reflects the decision points in a project lifecycle at which developers
either decide to continue to commit resources to refine 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
3 CCS PROJECTS
Figure 10 Asset lifecycle model
FINAL INVESTMENT DECISION
PLANNING ACTIVE
Project phase
IDENTIFY EVALUATE DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE
Developer’s Establish 'JOBMJTFTDPQF %FUBJMFEEFTJHO 0QFSBUF

Establish
goals EFWFMPQNFOU and execution and construction maintain and
preliminary
scope and options and plan JNQSPWFDPTUT
business execution
strategy strategy
Select concept Start-up

Activities
t4DPQJOHBOE t1SFGFBTJCJMJUZ t'FBTJCJMJUZ t%FUBJMFE t"TTFU
screening studies studies engineering management
studies t$PODFQUVBM t1SFMJNJOBSZ t$POTUSVDUJPO t#VTJOFTT
t&TUJNBUFPWFSBMM design engineering t$PNNJTTJPOJOH JNQSPWFNFOU
project capital t&TUJNBUFPWFSBMM '&&%
PGQMBOU t0QFSBUJPOTBOE
cost (±30-35%) project capital t&TUJNBUFPWFSBMM t&TUBCMJTI maintenance
and operating cost (±20-25%) project capital operating support
costs (±15-20%) and operating cost (±10-15%) organisation
t*EFOUJGZPQUJPOT costs (±10-15%) and operating
to be assessed t$POUSBDU costs (±5%)
JO&WBMVBUFTUBHF planning t5FOEFSBOETFMFDU
an engineering,
procurement and
construction
supplier
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
Define stage, project proponents are expected to have completed pre-feasibility studies and
identified the preferred development concept to take into FEED. To progress from the Define
stage to Execute, the level of project definition and assessment must be sufficient to allow a
final 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 Define stage (Figure 11). Since
2009, there are an additional 23 projects in the Operate stage, of which nine are newly identified
(and all are at the pilot or small-scale demonstration size). Some projects in the ‘planning’ stages
have progressed into greater definition with 47 projects now in the Define 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
2010
2009
The bulk of CCS activity occurs where there is clear government support. Figures 12, 13 and
14 show significant 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 beneficiary
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
3 CCS PROJECTS
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)
Coal-to-liquids
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
Power generation
Gas processing
Chemical production
Coal-to-liquids
Oil refining
Cement production
Alumina production
Pulp and paper
Hydrogen production
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
Power generation
Cement production
Oil refining
Gas processing
Pulp and paper
Coal-to-liquids
Hydrogen production
USA
Europe
Canada
Asia (excl. China)
China
Projects and the level of technology maturity in use

While transport and storage each bring specific technological challenges, it is the CO2 capture
process that is heavily technology-dependent. Certain CO2 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 large-
scale 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 defined 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 first successfully
constructed in a controlled environment (so-called bench or laboratory scale).
44
3 CCS PROJECTS
Table 3 Technology maturity categories by industry

INDUSTRY UNITS COMMERCIAL1 DEMONSTRATION PILOT BENCH
Electric power – biomass MW, net 80 8 4 <4
Electric power – coal MW, net 500 50 25 <25
Electric power – gas MW, net 400 40 20 <20
Aluminium Tonnes/year 50,000 5,000 2,500 <2,500
Cement Tonnes/year 150,000 15,000 7,500 <7,500
Petrochemicals Barrels per 100,000 10,000 5,000 <5,000
Stream Day
(BPSD)
Iron and steel Tonnes/year 100,000 10,000 5,000 <5,000
CO2 Transport and storage Tonnes/year 1,000,000 25,000 <25,000 na
1
This is the indicative minimum scale that is considered to define a ‘commercial-scale’ operation operating in a standard environment
(refer to Table C-1 in Appendix C for a full exposition).
Forty-four per cent of all identified CCS projects (102 projects) are using or plan to use technology
considered to be at commercial-scale. A further 32 per cent (76 projects) use technology
considered to be at demonstration level of maturity (Figure 15). More than 75 per cent of the
commercial-scale projects are in the planning stages.
Figure 15 All active and planned projects by industry sector and by technology maturity13
Power generation
Gas processing
Chemical production
Coal-to-liquids
Oil refining
Cement production
Alumina production
Pulp and paper
Hydrogen production
Bench
Pilot
Demonstration
Commercial
13
It is reasonable to assume that due to size, not all bench projects have been identified, especially those in planning stages.
45
In assessing the technical maturity of CCS systems, one key aspect is the required dynamic
(time-dependent) response of the CO2 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
significantly 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 first 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 CO2, 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 CO2. One example of an integrated but dependent project
is the Dakota Gasification 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
3 CCS PROJECTS
Figure 16 All active or planned projects by industry sector and level of integration
Power generation
Gas processing
Chemical production
Coal-to-liquids
Oil refining
Cement production
Pulp and paper
Alumina production
Hydrogen production
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 CO2 can occur efficiently.
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 capture-
only 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 CO2 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 defined as:14
• not less than 80 per cent of 1 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of CO2 captured and stored
annually for coal-fired power generation; and
• not less than 80 per cent of 0.5Mtpa of CO2 captured and stored annually for other emission
intensive industrial facilities (including natural gas-fired 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
Identify
Evaluate
Define
Execute
Operate
2010
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 CO2 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
3 CCS PROJECTS
Of the eight operating projects there are five projects that are considered ‘full’ CCS projects in
that they demonstrate the capture, transport and permanent storage of CO2 utilising sufficient
measurement, monitoring and verification (MMV) systems and processes to demonstrate
permanent storage. The remaining three projects exhibit the capture, transport and injection
of CO2 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 efficiencies is greatest. The Southern Company IGCC Project, for example,
is the first LSIP from the power sector to move into the Execute stage, representing a significant
milestone for the large-scale demonstration of capture technology.
Table 4 Active CCS LSIPs
NAME LOCATION CAPTURE STORAGE
Operation stage
Sleipner CO2 Injection Norway Gas processing Deep saline formation
Snøhvit CO2 Injection Norway Gas processing Deep saline formation
In Salah CO2 Injection Northern Africa Gas processing Deep saline formation
Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring Canada/ Pre-combustion (synfuels) EOR with MMV
and Storage Project United States
Rangely Weber Sand Unit CO2 United States Gas processing EOR with MMV
Injection Project
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 EOR
and oil refining)
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 significant movements between the individual
stages. This movement reflects a wide range of factors including:
49
• There are newly identified projects coming into the LSIP data set: both ’new’ projects identified
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 Define 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 figures 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 identified LSIPs are in the United States (and have a bias towards
EOR as a storage solution). While Europe has a number of newly identified 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 difficult 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
3 CCS PROJECTS
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
Newly identified
Stage unchanged
Cancelled/delayed
Progressed
Reassessed
USA
Europe
Canada
China
Asia (excl. China)
Figure 19 Change in LSIP project status from 2009 to 2010 by asset lifecycle stage
Identify
Evaluate
Define
Execute
Operate
Newly identified
Status unchanged
Cancelled/delayed
Progressed to
Reassessed to
51
Figure 20 Change in LSIP project status from 2009 to 2010 by industry sector
Newly identified
Stage unchanged
Cancelled/delayed
Progressed
Reassessed
Power generation
Gas processing
Coal-to-liquids
Oil refining
Ethanol plant
Pulp and paper
Cement production
Hydrogen production
Figure 21 Change in LSIP project status from 2009 to 2010 by capture type
Newly identified
Stage unchanged
Cancelled/delayed
Progressed
Reassessed
Pre-combustion
Post-combustion
Gas processing
Oxyfuel combustion
Figure 22 Change in LSIP project status from 2009 to 2010 by storage type
Newly identified
Stage unchanged
Cancelled/delayed
Progressed
Reassessed
Deep saline formations

EOR
Depleted oil and gas reservoirs
Deep basalt formations
52
3 CCS PROJECTS
CCS development in Europe

There have been two major (offsetting) factors influencing 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 significantly 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 CO2 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-fired 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 fitting CCS to gas-fired units and
industrial facilities.
• The ‘CCS Directive’, which mainly regulates the storage of CO2, 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
CO2 storage exists.
• The United Kingdom and the Netherlands have the largest number of LSIPs in Europe.
Projects in these countries have benefited or will be seeking to benefit 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 significant 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 CO2 in Europe with Sleipner and
Snøvhit collectively storing around 1.7Mtpa of CO2 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 CO2 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 EEPR-
funded 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 identified LSIPs. This can be quite
clearly traced to a number of drivers, including:
• the availability of significant government funding;
• the revenue offered by EOR; and
• the pursuit by EOR operators of early and relatively inexpensive sources of CO2.
The United States policy framework and funding arrangements specifically target industrial
applications. As a result, many of these newly identified projects in the United States are in
the industrial sector and associated with petrochemical plants, refineries, 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 CO2 from industrial sources have clearly been driven by the first-of-
a-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
CO2 that can come online before power generation capture projects can. This is because CO2
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 CO2 to support their
own expansion and development plans for EOR operations.
54
3 CCS PROJECTS
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 definition studies (the Define stage). This work will provide greater
clarity around the commercial viability of retrofitting 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 retrofit 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 significant emphasis and support for the development of
next generation CCS technologies such as advanced CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 in
conjunction with the development of mainly offshore gas-fields. The Gorgon project is the prime
example of CO2 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 CO2. 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 CO2 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 fields. 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 project-
specific 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 CO2 pipeline infrastructure. Shell’s Quest project
will use its Edmonton oil sands upgrading facility as the source of CO2. 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 CO2, which is not expected to impact the project significantly as the Agrium
fertiliser plant will provide the initial volumes of CO2.
• SaskPower Boundary Dam 3 has ordered the turbines and boilers for the power plant. While
the capture technology has been identified, SaskPower has yet to make a final 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 CO2 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 filed 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-fired power plant in south-eastern Alberta. These projects continue
to proceed in the Evaluate stage of the asset lifecycle.
56
3 CCS PROJECTS
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 reflected by an increasing emergence of proposed LSIPs and higher
government approval rates for projects to progress.
A small number of proactive and influential state-owned enterprises are responsible for driving
most of the significant 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 first 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 significantly 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 CO2 once completed. While
the source of CO2 is virtually ready for compression and transport, the storage of CO2 continues to
present considerable challenges.
CO2 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 benefits of EOR coupled with low-cost CO2 sources, which can provide a
significant financial boost to projects. There are significant competitive advantages for the MENA
region to garner from its well-characterised oil fields, 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 CO2 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 Storage type
Power generation EOR (Enhanced oil recovery)
3
Gas processing Deep saline formations

Multiple capture facilities Depleted oil and gas reservoirs
Other industry Deep basalt formations
59
CCS PROJECTS
3
60
CCS PROJECTS
(CONTINUED)
Figure 24 LSIPs in North America by industry sector and storage type
LSIPs: North America

Power generation Coal-to-liquids EOR (Enhanced oil recovery)
Gas processing Cement production Deep saline formations
Synthetic natural gas Ethanol plant Depleted oil and gas reservoirs
Fertiliser production Pulp and paper Deep basalt formations
Oil refining Various Various/not specified
Figure 25 LSIPs in Europe by industry sector and storage type
LSIPs: Europe
3

Power generation EOR (Enhanced oil recovery)
Gas processing Deep saline formations
Iron and steel production Depleted oil and gas reservoirs
Hydrogen production Various/not specified
Various
61
CCS PROJECTS
Figure 26 LSIPs by region or country by asset lifecycle stage
Identify
Evaluate
Define
Execute
Operate
USA
Europe
Canada
China
Asia (excl. China)
The amount of CO2 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 CO2
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 CO2 per annum.
Figure 27 LSIPs: amount of potentially stored CO2 per annum by region
CO2 stored (Mtpa) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
United States
United Kingdom
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
3 CCS PROJECTS
LSIPs by industry sector

Of the 77 LSIPs in total, 42 are in the power generation sector. Most of those are planned
for coal-fired 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 CO2 per annum by industry sector
CO2 stored (Mtpa) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Power generation 42
Gas processing 11
Synthetic natural gas (SNG) 5
Coal-to-liquids 3
Number of projects
Fertiliser production 3
Oil refining 2
Ethanol plant 1
Cement production 1
Pulp and paper 1
Hydrogen production 1
Iron and steel production 1
Various 6
In development
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 CO2 must be
separated from the gas stream before transporting to market. As identified in Chapter 7 on costs,
this can account for up to five 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 CO2 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 fit into the ‘Various’ category. This includes projects that
aim to capture CO2 from hub or network projects that expect to capture CO2 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 CO2 Evaluate 1Mtpa of CO2 to be Cement United States
Capture Plant captured using dry
sorbent capture
technology
ULCOS Florange Define 0.5Mtpa of CO2 to Iron and Steel France
be captured using
a prototype blast
furnace
Boise White Evaluate 0.72Mtpa of CO2 to Pulp and Paper United States
Paper Mill be captured from the
combustion of black
liquor
LSIPs by capture type

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
Pre-combustion
Post-combustion
Gas processing
Oxyfuel combustion
In development
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 flexibility of the technology is shown through the spread of projects across
power generation (19), synthetic natural gas (five), coal-to-liquids (three), fertiliser production
(three), oil refining (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 retrofitting post-combustion capture to existing facilities, enabling CO2 emissions that are
considered ‘locked in’ in operational facilities to be abated.
The other major capture technology includes the 12 LSIPs capturing CO2 as part of gas processing,
which is at the most mature stage of technology implementation since CO2 separation from
produced gas using amine-based absorbents is standard industry practice.
64
3 CCS PROJECTS
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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 stored for the LSIPs. This dominance of pre-combustion
technologies is reflective of the greater government funding that has been allocated to these
types of projects.
Figure 30 LSIPs in planning and Execute stages: potentially stored CO2 per annum by capture type15
CO2 stored (Mtpa) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Power
Gas processing
Gasification
Pre-combustion
Post-combustion
Oxyfuel combustion
Various
LSIPs by transport type

Almost all LSIPs (around 90 per cent) involve transporting or planning to transport CO2 via
pipelines. CO2 pipelines are a proven technology, with around 5,900 kilometres of CO2 pipelines
operating in North America alone for EOR. Forty-seven of the 70 projects utilising pipeline
transportation specified 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 CO2 source–sink constraint that
may hinder capture developments in areas where easily accessible storage options are limited.
15
Gasification category includes synthetic natural gas, coal-to-liquids and fertiliser production
65
Figure 31 LSIPs with pipelines for transport by known pipeline length
Number of projects 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
In development
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
3 CCS PROJECTS
Figure 33 LSIPs by storage type and asset lifecycle stage
Operate
Execute
Define
Evaluate
Identify
EOR
CO2-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 five to 10 years, especially in North America where it accounts for the bulk of CO2 to be
injected (Figure 34).
Figure 34 LSIPs: potentially stored CO2 per annum by country and storage type
CO2 stored (Mtpa) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
Canada
China
Netherlands
United Arab Emirates
Poland
Republic of Korea
Norway
Germany
Spain
Romania
New Zealand
Algeria
Italy
France
EOR
67
EOR projects provide revenue from CO2-enhanced oil production.16 In most cases, a significant
portion of the CO2 initially injected is ultimately recovered for reuse (recycling) and a portion of
the total injected CO2 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 CO2 for its facility.
Once the capture component is defined 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 field 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 confinement 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 CO2.
Importantly, the numerous EOR projects provide ‘practical experience’ for understanding the
movement and behaviour of CO2 in the subsurface, enabling testing of MMV techniques.
The challenge for CO2-based EOR projects – in the context of the process being a significant 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 confirm that CO2 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 CO2.
16
In the United States the market price for CO2 is estimated at around US$20-40 per tonne and this potential revenue appears to be a
significant project enabler (Moore 2010) though government support of various types is also required.
68
3 CCS PROJECTS
There are alternative views emerging that see opportunities for growth in CO2 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 CO2 injection (ARI and
Melzer Consulting 2010). Using larger volumes of CO2 in place of water injection may accelerate
CO2 storage while improving oil recovery.
In North America, onshore CO2 storage projects are being pursued almost exclusively. Most offshore
CO2 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
CO2 storage. It also allows European proponents to store CO2 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
OTHER ASIA
AUSTRALIA
AMERICA
EUROPE
MIDDLE
AFRICA
NORTH
CHINA
TOTAL
EAST
Power, pre-combustion 9 5 2 1 1 18
Industry and Capture
Power
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
Other
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
Pipeline point-to-point, not specified

1 1
on/offshore
Transport
Pipeline network 18 4 3 2 27
Pipeline, not specified as
7 1 8
point-to-point or network
Ship 1 2 3
Cross border CO2 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
Storage
1 2 1 4
be determined
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
Key:
No projects 1 - 2 projects 3 - 10 projects > 10 projects
Modified from L.E.K 2009
70
3 CCS PROJECTS
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 definition 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 CO2.
• 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 CO2.
2 Projects include full integration of CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 traffic light system for
assessing LSIPs against each of the G8 criteria (Table C-2 in Appendix C). The broad definitions
of the traffic light system are shown in Table 8. Table C-4 in Appendix C provides a more detailed
definition of the traffic light classification.
71
Table 8 Broad definitions of traffic light

TRAFFIC LIGHTS BROAD DEFINITION
Green Indicates that the project was progressing well in meeting a particular G8 criterion
Amber Indicates that the project was making some progress against a particular G8 criterion
Red 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 traffic light classification for 76 of the LSIPs17
against the G8 criteria. The key observations include:
• Most LSIPs, by definition, generally meet the first 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 defined their storage site and transport routes.
The remaining two thirds, in general, have identified possible storage and transport routes,
but the level of definition of these is limited and detailed work is required to progress.
The data suggests that fewer than half of the projects in the Define 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 identified 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
traffic light (14 projects) relative to the number of LSIPs in the Define, 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 classification,
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.
17
The South Heart IGCC project was newly identified in late 2010 and sufficient information was not provided to undertake a traffic light
assessment.
72
3 CCS PROJECTS
• 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
Number of projects 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 CO2 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 5 -10 years Early assessment

to undertake high-level regional and at least tens of millions of of the opportunities and risks of
storage assessments have been dollars are required to fully assess a potential storage site is important
progressed since 2008 in North and characterise a ‘greenfield’ in managing an integrated CCS
America, Europe, India, Australia, storage site. project’s overall risks and timing.
China, South Africa and Brazil.
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 CO2 storage,
only a handful of projects around the world have undertaken activities to estimate CO2 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 CO2 storage resources and ‘reserves’ will be needed to facilitate analysis and comparison of
opportunities for widespread deployment of CCS.
• Transition from CO2 injection for enhanced oil recovery (which is dominant in North America) to
permanent, dedicated storage of CO2 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 CO2 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
CO2 in geological formations. Specifically, this chapter will:
• report on and analyse the progress of national assessments for CO2 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 CO2.
4.2 Recent progress in storage

Global assessments
The IPCC in its 2005 CCS Special Report made high-level, global CO2 storage capacity estimates
ranging from 1,700-11,000Gt of CO2 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
sufficient capacity at a global level to meet the goal of storing a total of 145Gt of CO2 from
emissions by 2050.
In 2009, the IEA reconfirmed the target of 145Gt of CO2 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
CO2 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
Figure 37 World geological storage suitability
Source: IEAGHG R&D Programme, Geogreen and Global CCS Institute (2011)
World geological storage suitability
Highly suitable, sedimentary basin or continental margin
Suitable, sedimentary basin or continental margin
Possible, sedimentary basin or continental margin
4
No data
Unsuitable, deep water
Unsuitable, igneous rock
Unproven
Main faults
77
CO2 STORAGE
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 defined 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 CO2 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 significant storage and point to where more local and site-specific
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 workflow
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 definition 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 CO2 storage.
(Table C-5 in Appendix C provides a more complete summary of recent studies). The levels of
assessment are defined below.
78
4 CO2 STORAGE
Figure 38 Status of country-scale screening assessments
Status of screening assessments
Under development
Characterised
Theoretical
Capacity
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 CO2 storage in the
five nations within the Indian subcontinent, which pointed to significant 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 five-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 CO2 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 CO2 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 significant 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
classification system for estimates of geological storage capacity for CO2 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
classification system as illustrated in Figure 39.
80
4 CO2 STORAGE
Figure 39 IEAGHG R&D Programme proposed classification system for evaluating CO2 storage
resource/capacity estimates
Practical Storage Capacity

Effective Storage Resource
Characterised Storage Resource
Proved Probable Possible

Theoretical Storage Resource
Contingent Storage Resource
Unusable Storage Resource
Uncharacterised Storage Resource
Source: Gorecki et al. (2009)
The proposed classification 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 CO2 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 sufficient confidence) and the less certain
estimates of ‘probable’ or ‘possible’ capacities.
Analogous to classification 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) classification.
Consensus in the international community to endorse and use a consistent scheme will facilitate
investment decision making as financial institutions and other organisations will have greater
confidence in comparing and contrasting storage assessment studies. An agreed scheme will
support, but not substitute for, the confidence 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 CO2 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 CO2 storage

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 CO2 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 significant increases in CO2
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 CO2. For example,
the giant Natuna natural gas field, which remains undeveloped, contains approximately 70 per cent
CO2 by composition. Malaysia also has high CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2
will be injected, and the insights about the reservoir’s response to injection given the history of
hydrocarbon extraction within the producing field. 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 CO2 injection.
82
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 CO2. 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 difficult 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 CO2. 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, confined to
strata above the deep saltwater bearing formations. The detailed geology and rate at which CO2
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 first,
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 sufficient 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 coefficients 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 refine coefficient values and assessment methods.
Refining these resource estimates from theoretical to practical storage capacity of individual sites
will require a costly, but necessary, significant 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 CO2 by ship or pipeline may be feasible
83
in the long-term when wide-scale deployment of CCS underpins the scale efficiencies that are
required to moderate the cost of CO2 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-benefit 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 significantly 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 fields (and the wealth of prior exploration and
production data associated with such fields).
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 fields
and their data. This is likely to involve scheduling the exploration needed for storage assurance
in advance of major CO2 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-specific
understanding of the quality of the storage reservoir, including the pore volume and distribution,
rock chemistry, pre-injection pore fluid 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 CO2 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$150 million
on site-appraisal activities for its CO2 injection component within an existing hydrocarbon province
prior to FID.
Although each project will be different in detail, in order to progress from the regional scale to
mature a site to injection-readiness will require additional geophysical acquisition (commonly two
and three-dimensional reflection seismic surveys), drilling, well testing, predictive reservoir and
containment modelling and laboratory analyses with follow-up work during the operation to the
post-injection phases.
This level of data and analysis is also needed to meet the requirements of regulators, as well as
the broader public, and demonstrate that the risks of leakage and other potential impacts on the
environmental, health and safety, and other subsurface resources can be properly managed.
The development and operation costs are very sensitive to the quality of the aquifer/reservoir,
largely due to the number of injection wells required in lower quality reservoirs.
Figure 40 illustrates schematically, for non-specific ‘greenfields’ examples, cash outflows over
time, particularly when the site is being drilled/developed for injection. It represents a low
estimate, as it is based on technical costs, does not include well failures, office or approvals
costs and assumes minimal maintenance during the early operational phase. It also does
not include ongoing drilling or pressure relief wells. The time from screening to completion of
development in preparation for injection is likely between five and 10 years, a timeframe that is
based on well, seismic and operating costs from the Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture
and Storage Technologies: 2011 Update (WorleyParsons 2011). The reservoir and plume
modelling costs were estimated separately. It demonstrates how sensitive costs are to the quality
of the storage reservoir.
85
Figure 40 Schematic cash outflow undiscounted – onshore storage only 3Mtpa
US$m/year Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10
60 Poor reservoir
Good reservoir
50
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
flexibility on both the proponents and regulators’ parts to optimise techniques for specific sites
(for example, monitoring: Jagger 2010). As confidence and experience are being built up in a
new sector, ‘fit 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 verification. Deficiencies in capacity and capability in this emerging
sector could lead to inefficiencies, 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
identified 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 final 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 CO2 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 qualified.
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 CO2 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 difficulty 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 benefit from CO2 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 CO2 usage is currently minimised in EOR.
At present, EOR projects recycle much of the CO2 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 CO2 injected (see Dooley et al. 2010 for a more complete discussion on issues impacting
CO2-EOR systems).
In the future, depending on incentives and availability of CO2 to projects, higher concentrations
of CO2 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 PROJECTS18
Depleted oil and • Previous characterisation and may have some existing 8 – all in the
gas reservoirs infrastructure to support injection activities. planning stages
• 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.
18
Table does not include those projects where the exact storage type has not been specified.
88
4 CO2 STORAGE
Table 10 Types of geological storage and current status

CURRENT
LARGE-SCALE
STORAGE TYPE DESCRIPTION/STATUS PROJECTS18
Enhanced oil or gas • Commercially viable, particularly with significant experience 32 most are in
recovery with CO2 and existing networks established in North America for injecting North America
CO2 for EOR. (5 operational;
• Beneficial use value of the CO2 can help to recover some of the 24 planned; 3
costs associated with large-scale CCS demonstration projects. in construction)
• 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 CO2 storage and EOR are certainly
a key driver for CCS demonstration projects in North America.
• Opportunities for Enhanced Natural Gas Recovery with CO2 are
not as developed.
• Need to understand net CO2 storage.
Deep saline • Demonstrated Sleipner, and more recently Snøvhit associated 26 (3 operational;
formations with oil fields (In-Salah gas) and hence, have the presence of 22 planned; 1 in
sealing rocks. construction)
• Relatively wide global distribution, estimated to have by far the
greatest storage capacity compared to other types.
• Injection and behaviour of CO2 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 CO2 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.
Unmineable • Not currently demonstrated, with little testing at the pilot scale. None (TBC)
coal seams • Coal has a natural affinity for CO2 relative to methane that is
naturally found on the surfaces of coal; when CO2 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 CO2 injection is used to
enhance production from an existing coal-bed methane project.
• Beneficial reuse application – net greenhouse benefit?
Basalt formations • Not currently demonstrated, with little testing at the 1 (planned)
pilot scale.
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 CO2 sources also may not have depleted
oil and gas formations located nearby.
A substantial and immediate effort will be required to sufficiently ‘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 CO2 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
33 331 million tonnes 42 per cent

of the 77 large-scale demonstrations of CO2 per annum will potentially be of the 77 LSIPs identified in
are associated with the 31 network captured and stored by around 2030 Chapter 3, 32 LSIPs (or 42 per
proposals. if all these network proposals proceed cent) are associated with the CO2
as planned. network proposals identified in
this chapter.
KEY MESSAGES
• Extensive pipeline networks already exist for transporting CO2. Most are in North America and are
used to supply CO2 for EOR, with more than 5,900 kilometres of operating pipeline infrastructure.
• An integrated CO2 ‘network’ approach for CCS is defined as a system with shared or
interconnected infrastructure for transporting CO2 from multiple capture sources to one or more
underground injection sites. It could also be integrated with providing CO2 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 benefits compared to a
standalone single source CCS development can provide economic advantages and are influencing
the development of several proposed CCS projects.
• Thirty-one different CCS related CO2 network proposals have been identified, split between
14 ‘overarching’ proposals to establish a new CO2 network (which often encompass one or two
initial ‘anchor’ large-scale integrated projects) and 17 proposed extensions or components to
existing CO2-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 CO2 being captured and stored by around 2030. However, the ‘anchor’ LSIPs associated
with these network proposals are proposing to store only up to 86Mtpa CO2.
• Of the 77 LSIPs identified in Chapter 3, 33 (43 per cent) are associated with the CO2 network
proposals identified 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.
• CO2 technical specifications will be vital to avoid issues with transport and storage arising from
trying to integrate the deployment of different capture technologies.
93
5 CO2 NETWORKS FOR CCS (CONTINUED)
Most CCS projects are based on transporting CO2 by pipeline. CO2 pipelines are a relatively ‘mature’
technology that have been in operation for several decades and comprise most of the existing CO2
transportation infrastructure around the world. By far the largest concentration is in North America,
where 5,900 kilometres of pipeline are transporting approximately 50Mtpa CO2 for EOR (United
States Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage 2010). A map of the main existing
and proposed CO2 pipeline infrastructure in North America is depicted in Figure 41, which includes
transporting CO2 from both natural geologic and anthropogenic sources. Only a few CO2 pipelines
exist outside of North America, for example in the Netherlands for supplying CO2 to greenhouses
and in Turkey for EOR.
Pipelines are usually the most cost-effective option for transporting large volumes of CO2.
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 significantly more costly. Only three large-scale CCS projects in
the planning stages are considering transporting CO2 by ship, two of which are in the Republic
of Korea. A shipping option is also being considered for a portion of the CO2 that could be
potentially captured in the Rotterdam region of the Netherlands.
Wide deployment of CCS will require extensive transportation infrastructure, particularly CO2
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 significant share of CO2 capture and storage
points for CCS will eventually become interconnected though integrated pipeline networks.
Much of the existing CO2 pipeline infrastructure in the world is already based on an integrated
network approach. Several of the major operating and proposed CO2 pipelines in the United States
in Figure 41 (owned and managed by carriers such as Denbury Resources, Kinder Morgan and
Anadarko) aggregate CO2 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
CO2 ‘network’ for CCS is defined as a system with shared or interconnected infrastructure for
transporting CO2 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 CO2 by ship.
A CCS network could also be integrated with supplying CO2 to industrial users that will not inject
it underground, such as the food and beverage industry or supplying CO2 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 CO2 from Shell’s Pernis refinery 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 CO2 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 CO2 ‘hub’ and potentially a regional
‘aggregation hub’ for CO2 transported to Rotterdam, including by ship down the Rhine River.
94
Figure 41 Existing and planned CO2 pipelines in North America
different pipeline operations

Different colours represent
CO2 Sources
CO2 pipelines in North America
In service
Proposed
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
4
6
Source: Rotterdam Climate Initiative
1 Shell Pernis 5 Abengoa Transport by pipeline

2 E.ON-ROCA 6 Air Products Transport by ship
3 E.ON Capture facility (2010) 7 CO 2 Hub C02 capture
3 ROAD (2015/2025) Green houses
4 Air Liquide Connecting industry to CCS network energy intensive industry
C02 Hub
Final plans for the development of the Rotterdam Climate Initiative may not reflect those depicted in this figure.
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 CO2 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
CO2 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 CO2.
The remainder of this chapter will provide additional background information on the incentives
and risks of a CO2 network approach to advance CCS, and then provide a more detailed status
on all global CO2 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 CO2 pipelines) that can be achieved
compared to stand alone projects where each CO2 point-source develops its own independent
and smaller scale transportation or storage requirements.
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 CO2 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 CO2 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 (CO2 Sense 2010).
96
Other benefits 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 CO2 flow based on flexibility to optimise and balance between supply
and demand for CO2. For example, a temporary shutdown in capture at one source would
not disrupt the supply of CO2 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 difficulty in obtaining financing for assets that will initially be ‘oversized’ in
anticipation of future volumes of CO2 being added to the network, but where their timing and
actual realisation of volume growth is uncertain. This ‘oversizing’ could also create a ‘first
mover’ disadvantage for projects that are competing for financing or government funding
based on $/tonne of CO2 stored;
• It is difficult to manage complex financial 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 CO2 feeding into a common network. The extent of these issues is uncertain and
require further work on CO2 specifications for common user transportation networks;
• It is complex to monitor different sources of CO2 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 CO2 supplied, such as under an emissions trading scheme or for EOR; and
• There is uncertainty regarding technical standards for CO2 transport that could be subsequently
imposed and complicate the integration of multiple sources or end-users for CO2.
Various commercial, financing, 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 financing, 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 CO2 infrastructure ‘entity’; and
• government loan guarantees, or government loans payable when the network can eventually
charge for CO2 transportation.
Government financial 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 CO2 networks for CCS

Overall, 31 different CO2 network initiatives related to CCS have been identified (Table 11), with
a fairly even split between:
• fourteen proposals for establishing and coordinating a new CO2 network for CCS; and
• seventeen extensions or components of existing CO2-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 CO2 network for CCS
compared to the oil sector extending existing CO2 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 CO2 network initiatives, an important distinction should be made between the
‘overarching’ initiative based on integrating multiple CCS projects over time, and ‘anchor’ LSIPs
identified in Chapter 3 that are also proceeding as the first phase of some of these broader and
longer-term network initiatives. For example:
• the proposed CO2 Sense network in the United Kingdom has identified a long-term potential
to capture and store upwards of 40Mtpa CO2 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 CO2 by 2020 from the proposed Immingham and Hatfield IGCC
projects; and
• the Alberta Carbon Trunkline in Canada is designed to accommodate 14Mtpa CO2, which
includes the Enhance Energy EOR LSIP that will initially capture and transport 1.8Mtpa CO2
from an existing fertiliser plant and a new oil sands upgrader by 2013.
For the extensions and components of existing CO2-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 CO2 network initiatives related to CCS

B. EXTENSIONS/COMPONENTS OF
A. NEW CO2 NETWORK PROPOSALS FOR CCS EXISTING CO2-EOR NETWORKS
Associated with large-scale integrated ‘demonstration’ LSIPs identified in Projects Chapter
projects (LSIPs) as identified in Chapter 319: that are extensions to existing CO2-EOR
1 Rotterdam Afvang en Opslag Demo (ROAD) [58] Networks:
• Rotterdam Afvang en Opslag Demo 1 Project Viking, New Mexico [2]
• Capture from additional emitter(s) in the Port of Rotterdam 2 Faustina Hydrogen, Louisiana [16]
such as the Air Liquide Hydrogen plant [40] [28] 3 Indiana Gasification [22]
2 CCS in Northern Netherlands 4 Cash Creek, Kentucky [14]
• Eemshaven RWE [59] 5 Leucadia Mississippi [24]
• Nuon Magnum [47] 6 Taylorville Energy Centre IGCC,
3 CO2 Sense, United Kingdom Illinois [35]
• Immingham CCS Project [6] 7 Tenaska ‘Trailblazer’ Energy Centre,

Texas [61]
• Hatfield IGCC [20]
8 Lake Charles Gasification Plant,
4 Scottish Cluster, United Kingdom
Louisiana [51]
• Longannet Clean Coal Power Station [53]
9 Texas Clean Energy Project [60]
• APL/Hunterston [21]
10 Air Products Project, Texas [41]
5 North East CCS Cluster, United Kingdom
11 Entergy Nelson 6 CCS Project,
• CO2 capture at proposed Eston Grange and existing Louisiana [48]
Lynemouth power stations [9]
12 Southern Company IGCC Project,
6 Collie Hub Project, Australia Mississippi [69]
• CO2 capture at industrial centres, including existing 13 Occidental Gas Processing Plant,
fertiliser plant [36] Texas [68]
7 Victorian CarbonNet, Australia
LSIPs identified in Projects Chapter
• CO2 capture at two coal-fired power plants [37] that are operational and connected to a
8 Masdar CCS Project, United Arab Emirates broader CO2-EOR Network:
• CO2 capture at power, steel and aluminium plants [55] 14 Salt Creek Enhanced Oil Recovery
• Hydrogen Power Abu Dhabi (HPAD) [50] Project, Wyoming [73]
9 Alberta Carbon Trunkline/Integrated CO2 Network, Canada 15 Enid Fertiliser, Oklahoma [70]
• Enhance Energy EOR Project, with CO2 capture at a 16 Rangely Project, Colorado [72]
fertiliser plant and planned oil sands upgrader [66] 17 Sharon Ridge, Texas [74]
10 Bell Creek EOR, United States
• CO2 capture from existing Lost Cabin (Capture project)
natural gas processing plant and piped to more than one
existing EOR site. [54]
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 CO2 network initiatives related to CCS are generally located in regions where more than
one new CO2 capture opportunity is being seriously contemplated or there is already a high,
current concentration of existing CO2-EOR network infrastructure.
Proposals for New CO2 networks for CCS

Of the 14 ‘overarching’ proposals for establishing new CO2 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 CO2 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 specific ‘anchor’
demonstration projects as part of the network’s initial phase.
In total, 16 of the LSIPs identified in Chapter 3 are also ‘anchor’ projects for these broader new
network proposals, including seven LSIPs that have reached the Define 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 CO2 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 CO2 volumes;
• public consultations and obtaining transport easements for pipeline routes;
• coordination of construction schedules;
• establishing financial and regulatory structures that will allow subsequent third-party access;
• technical reviews of CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 specific 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
Define 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 Define 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 CO2 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 CO2 for CCS are currently based on
direct permanent geological storage, including seven different network proposals that involve
storing CO2 in various regions under the North Sea.
Proposed extensions and components of existing CO2-EOR networks

The 17 extensions and components of existing CO2-EOR networks in Table 11 are driven mainly
by opportunities to increase oil production based on access to new sources of CO2. 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 CO2 infrastructure
are significantly different from the requirements for establishing a new CO2 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 CO2 to EOR operators,
are also providing an incentive for these extensions to enable activities such as the large-scale
demonstration of CO2 capture technologies. As such, each of these 17 extensions are also
identified as an LSIP in Chapter 3 for demonstrating CCS.
101
Despite these incentives, several of these proposed extensions are also requiring government
financial support. For example, the Summit Texas Clean Energy Project, which plans to capture
CO2 from a proposed IGCC plant in Texas and feed into Blue Source’s existing Val Verde CO2
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 CO2-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 CO2-EOR
networks, while two proposed extensions to existing CO2-EOR networks are in the Execute stage,
and another four extensions are in the advanced Define planning stage.
Contribution of CO2 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 CO2-EOR networks, represent 43 per cent of the overall
77 LSIPs identified in Chapter 3. Combined, these 33 LSIPs have the potential to capture and
store up to 86Mtpa CO2 by 2020 (should they all advance to be operational).
Beyond 2020, it is the longer-term potential CO2 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 CO2
by around 2030 and beyond. However, there is much variation between proposals. For example,
1Mtpa CO2 is being planned into the future for the Bell Creek EOR network project in the United
States, whereas 50-60Mtpa CO2 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 CO2 by around 2030 and beyond, and a total of
331Mtpa CO2 when adding the proposed extensions and current components of existing CO2-
EOR networks.20 However, this includes 65Mtpa CO2 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 CO2 by 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

around 2030
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
CO2-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 Challenges facing governments in

commercial certainty, ensure developing regulatory frameworks
effective stewardship and protect include long-term liability and pore
public health, safety and the space ownership, amongst others.
environment.
KEY MESSAGES
• During the past 12 months, significant 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 significant progress in addressing some of the most difficult 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 CO2 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 identifies CCS as a crucial component of the least-cost portfolio of technologies required
to reduce energy-related CO2 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 significant
regulatory challenge – appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks are required to provide
commercial certainty, ensure the effective stewardship of CO2 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, significant 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 defining
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 CO2 storage activities. There is no broad consensus across the first-
wave 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 first 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 CO2 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 CO2 storage operations. This priority may change over time as
more emphasis is placed on reduction of CO2 emissions. Accordingly, flexibility should be built
into legal and regulatory frameworks so that any changes in government priorities can be easily
dealt with. Such flexibility 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 financial 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 financial 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 financial 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 financial 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 financial
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 post-
closure 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 CO2 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 fit CCS, there is a growing consensus that they should be built
to be CCS ready (CCSR) to facilitate the retrofit 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 defined at an international level. The IEA,
CSLF and the Global CCS Institute have defined 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

Significant 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 CO2 storage operation and accounting.
The United States EPA finalised two new rules relating to CCS on 22 November 2010. The first
rule is based around the protection of underground drinking water and sets requirements for
the storage of CO2, 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 CO2 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 CO2 stored
by these facilities.
108
Significant 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

STORAGE SITE PROPERTY LONG-TERM CCS
STATE PERMITTING RIGHTS STEWARDSHIP INCENTIVES
Colorado ✔
Illinois ✔ ✔ ✔
Kansas ✔ ✔ ✔
Louisiana ✔ ✔ ✔
Mississippi ✔
Montana ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
New Mexico ✔
North Dakota ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Oklahoma ✔ ✔
Texas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Utah ✔
Washington ✔
West Virginia ✔ ✔
Wyoming ✔ ✔ ✔
Table modified 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-fired 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 verification and long-term liability, which will be further clarified 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 CO2 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-specific 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 CO2 storage, including
requirements on permitting, composition of the CO2 stream, monitoring, reporting, inspections,
corrective measures, closure and post-closure obligations, transfer of responsibility to the state,
and financial 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 CO2.
110
Following the finalisation 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 finalised 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 CO2
storage lifecycle risk management, site characterisation, CO2 stream composition, monitoring
and corrective measures, transfer of responsibility, financial security and financial contribution.
The European Commission consulted on these documents (a process ending in July 2010) and
was finalising 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 first
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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 ratification by at least seven contracting parties
under the OSPAR Convention’s ratification provisions to enter into effect. To date, six contracting
parties to the OSPAR Convention have ratified the amendment, which means the Convention
does not expressly enable some configurations 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 specified issues
being addressed and resolved in a satisfactory manner. This development represents the most
significant progress that has been made towards an internationally led incentive mechanism
for regulating and supporting CCS operations in developing countries over the past five years.
It is a significant step forward.
112
113
7 CCS 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 Avoided CO2 costs range from Preliminary real IGCC project
highly variable across countries, US$62-81/tonne for coal investment cost information ranges
varying up to 50 per cent. and exceed US$100/tonne for between US$3,280-9,470/kW.
gas – excluding site-specific
investment costs.
KEY MESSAGES
• Project costs can vary significantly based on location-specific factors such as labour rates, fuel
costs, and fuel characteristics. With high volatility in plant construction costs and few new coal-
fired power plants without CCS being constructed, real project costs are difficult 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 CO2 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 identified cost estimates for IGCC plants, which increased as 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. That is, the relative economics of oxyfuel
combustion, post-combustion CO2 capture and IGCC may change as projects using these
technologies undergo more detailed evaluations in the future.
• The economics of CO2 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 five 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 specific 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 reflect 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 specific 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 specific projects aim to provide the owner with as accurate
an estimate as possible of all the project costs that must be financed. The technology has
already been selected, and the focus is on the many site-specific elements that affect a project’s
cost. For example, fuel types and resource availability affect plant configuration and require
equipment and operations different from the typical plant configurations that are generally used
for technology screening studies. Site-specific 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 influencing 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 specific project are reported, only the cost of
a single technology is presented that takes into account site specific requirements and owner’s
preferences.
116
7 CCS COSTS
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 greenfield 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
REPORTED COST SCALED
PROJECT LOCATION GASIFIER OUTPUT COST TO 500MW
MW (NET) US$/KW US$/KW
Wandoan Power Australia General Electric 400 9,470 8,101
Energy
HECA CA, United States General Electric 250 9,200 5,663
Energy
Taylorville IL, United States Siemens 602 5,814 6,621
1
Edwardsport 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-specific costs to be approximately identified.
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$8,101-4,204/kW. The range
from highest to lowest has decreased but is still large – the highest to lowest cost differing by a
factor of almost two.
More detailed engineering design and cost estimates have been undertaken for large-scale IGCC
plants with CCS than for any other power generation application. However, without access to
detailed project-specific information, project-based costs provide limited guidance on underlying
technology costs. For an IGCC plant with CCS installed, the difference in location-specific costs
can result in costs varying by almost 100 per cent (Figure 44).
117
Figure 44 Normalising emerging IGCC project costs
Size of plant in MW 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Cost in US$kW
10,000 Wandoan Power
HECA
Wandoan Power
8,000
Taylorville
6,000 HECA Taylorville

Edwardsport
Hatfield
Edwardsport
Kemper
4,000 Kemper
Hatfield
2,000
0
Reported costs by size of plant
Reported costs scaled to 500MW
7.3 CCS design study estimates in 2010

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 configurations
and gasifiers 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 configurations.
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 configuration and cost estimates across the three cost studies is
presented in Table 14. Before the cost estimates across these three studies are compared and
118
7 CCS COSTS
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 configurations 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 DOE/
1
PARSONS NETL IEA (SHELL) (SHELL) (COP) (GE) PARSONS PARSONS NETL
Base year1,2 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 $/kW 4,701 3,570 3,838 4,632 3,904 3,466 3,334 4,430 1,964 1,497
cost
O&M3 $/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
Efficiency4 % 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
Transport5 $/MWh 1 – na 1 – – – 1 1 –
6
Storage $/CO2 6 5.6 na 6 5.7 5.6 5.3 6 6 3.2
7
LCOE $/MWh 131 135 90 125 151 140 134 121 123 109
Avoided cost $/tonne 81 87 ~75 67 77 93 109 57 107 106
of CO28
1
IEA estimates only include the cost of capture and compression.
2
Base year for the current dollars estimates of cost components.
3
The DOE/NETL study includes payroll and property taxes. Taxes are not in the other studies.
4
The IEA report LHV, net heat efficiency rates, WorleyParsons and the DOE/NETL studies report HHV, net heat efficiency rates.
5
Transport distances are assumed to be 100km and 80km by WorleyParsons and DOE/NETL studies respectively. For DOE/NETL
transport costs are included in the storage item.
6
The DOE/NETL study includes payments for liability for 30 years.
7
Levelised costs of electricity.
8
Reference facility in all coal technologies is supercritical pulverised coal within each study. Values for Doe/NETL studies calculated
by Global CCS Institute.
119
Figure 45 Installed capital costs for 550MW net generation1,2
US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5
Pulverised coal – supercritical 2.6 2.1

Integrated gasification 3.6 1.1
Oxyfuel combustion3 4.4
Natural gas CC 1.0 1.0
w/o CCS
CCS
1
For first-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-specific
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 Wandoan Power
HECA
8,000
6,000 Taylorville
WorleyParson – Shell Edwardsport
DOE – Shell Kemper
4,000 DOE – CoP Hatfield
DOE – GE
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 fixed operation and maintenance costs would be covered.
120
7 CCS COSTS
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 avoided22 cost of CO2, or levelised abatement
cost, ranges from US$66/tonne CO2 for oxyfuel combustion to US$107/tonne CO2 for natural gas.
Figure 47 Levelised costs of electricity across different capture technologies1,2
US$/MWh 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

US$/tonne CO2
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 CO2 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 CO2 avoided is the additional cost of CO2 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 CO2 emissions intensity relative to
the reference facility.
121
Variable abatement costs

In addition to the levelised avoided cost of CO2, the variable cost of abatement23 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 CO2 for an IGCC plant to US$63/tonne CO2
for an NGCC plant (Figure 48). Although the variable abatement cost for IGCC is lower than for the
other two technologies, this requires the IGCC plant to be built in the first place. Depending on the
circumstances, an IGCC plant may not be the first plant of choice, as the levelised, or average lifetime,
cost of abatement may not be sufficient to entice investment originally (Figure 47).
The variable abatement cost reflects the price of avoiding a penalty for emitting CO2 that would
be required to operate a demonstration plant once it had been built. That is, for the demonstration
projects currently being constructed where some or all of the additional up-front investment costs
for CCS are met through government programs, this variable abatement cost estimate reflects the
additional costs of operating the plant. It also provides information on how CCS operations may
interact with CO2 offset markets such as those operated through the CDM.
Variable costs of abatement estimates derived from technology comparison studies should be
considered with care. As discussed in section 7.2 on the purpose of cost estimates, these studies
make a number of operational levelling assumptions in order to better estimate differences in
technology costs within a given situation. However, this sacrifices accuracy in the level of location-
specific costs.
Figure 48 Variable avoided cost of abatement
US$/CO2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Post combustion
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 finding 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 CO2 capture cost. The CO2 capture cost is the incremental cost per tonne of CO2 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 CO2 emissions captured per hour.
122
7 CCS COSTS
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$/CO2 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
Post combustion
Oxyfuel
IGCC
Source: WorleyParsons (2011) NGCC
Storage costs
The economics of CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2
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 CO2 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$6-13/MWh.
Overall, the contribution of storage costs to total levelised costs in moving from a ‘good’ reservoir to
a ‘poorer’ reservoir would increase levelised costs by around 5 per cent across the three capture
technologies, increasing the share of storage costs to around 10 per cent overall.
Table 15 Storage site scenario assumptions and outcomes
STORAGE
NET ABSOLUTE CONTRIBUTION
THICKNESS PERMEABILITY WELL COUNT TO LCOE1
m mD FOR 3Mtpa FOR 12Mtpa US$/MWh
‘Poorer’ reservoir 5 150 16 61 13
‘Good’ reservoir 15 400 2 8 6
1.
For approximately 3Mtpa
7.4 Industrial sectors

The CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 generated from power
production was included in the total process. Novel system designs or systems that require
significant reconfiguration of the existing process were not considered.
124
7 CCS COSTS
Table 16 Incremental cost of CCS for industrial processes

BLAST
FURNACE
STEEL NATURAL GAS FERTILISER
PRODUCTION CEMENT PROCESSING PRODUCTION
Incremental product US$ $82/tonne steel $34/tonne $0.056/GJ $11/tonne
costs cement natural gas ammonia
Avoided CO2 cost US$/tonne 54 54 19 20
CO2
Incremental commodity % 9-13 35-47 1 3
cost increase
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 influence on calculated LCOE is identified. 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 flow 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 influenced by the underlying
assumptions of transportation of 80-100km and relatively good reservoir conditions reducing the
number of injection wells required.
As geology strongly influences 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
7 CCS COSTS
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 significant 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 identified 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 CO2 costs ranging from
US$40-70/tonne CO2 for coal plants and up to US$85/tonne CO2 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 Maximising the uptake and use of In order to avoid fragmentation of
the benefits of their investment by web-based technologies as tools to knowledge-sharing initiatives, there is
capturing knowledge gained through augment the value of face-to-face a need to connect regional networks
project delivery with a view to models for knowledge sharing has focused on CCS.
supporting the further development become apparent.
of next-mover CCS projects.
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-specific 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 fine-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 significant public and
private resources, 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 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. Specifically, 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 efficiently on a given task.
This enables:
• knowledge consumers to build on the successes and failures of previous work;
• knowledge providers to benefit by gaining credibility as an expert by helping shape an area
in their direction or grow the market; and
• knowledge providers to benefit by having their ideas improved upon or questions answered
by sharing knowledge with a broader set of users.
Beyond this simplified 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, defines 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 confidential.
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 benefits in at least six areas (Figure 52).
Figure 52 Benefits of effective knowledge sharing
Innovation Project
Exchange Delivery
Global Build the Effective

Connectivity Market for Spending
CSS
Public Capacity
Engagement 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 benefits 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 knowledge-
sharing 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
beneficiaries 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 confidence 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 benefits 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 identification of good practices and lessons learned from project delivery; and
• leveraging experience and evidence generated by CCS demonstration to build public
confidence 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 specific 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 knowledge-
sharing 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 difficult to clearly define. 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 modified 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 conflict
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 defines
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
defining 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-fits-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 identified 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 efficiently;
• 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 financiers and insurers – to enable financial institutions to gain familiarity with CCS
and become capable of supplying finance 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

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 knowledge-
sharing 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 knowledge-
sharing 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 five 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
136
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 identification
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 field 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.
United Kingdom
Although still under development and awaiting finalisation 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 significant 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: <http://en.openei.org/wiki/Main_Page>.
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-of-
the-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 confidentiality 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 define 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
9 CCS 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
Productive relationships with Public engagement risk

key decision makers are based management is essential
on trust and ongoing dialogue. 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-specific 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 reflect 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 benefits 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 difficult 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–specific 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 significant profits 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 first 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 CO2Sink 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 CO2
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 scientific 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 definition of CCS, as well as misconceptions about the safe
transport and storage of CO2, 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, influential 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
<http://ccs101.ca/>, 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 identification 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, profiled later in this chapter, is an example of what can result when industry proponents
and government influencers 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 CO2 storage, monitoring, and
verification 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 identified 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 officer 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 first 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 well-
defined social value proposition that addresses the needs and attitudes of the local community
with benefits which project proponents can help deliver.
Finding economic incentives and other mechanisms that benefit the community can assist in
community acceptance. However, it is also important to note that communities may be sceptical
of financial 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 CO2 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 benefit 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 influence, 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 conflict 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 first 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 identified 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 specific 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 CO2
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:
<www://globalccsinstitute.com/community/groups/ccs-social-research/related-case-studies>.
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,
benefits 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 specific 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.
Table 18 Snapshot of public engagement case studies24
PROJECT AUTHOR PROJECT KEY ENGAGEMENT
LEADER CASE STUDY PERSPECTIVE TYPE TOOLS USED PROJECT OUTCOME
Shell Barendrecht Independent CCS at an • Formal hearings Project cancelled by
(Netherlands) observer oil refinery as part of impact the Government due
(0.3Mtpa CO2) assessments to extensive delays and
• Information centre lack of local support.
at shopping mall
one year after project
announcement
• Websites and
informational flyers
• Personal visits by
national ministers
Battelle, Big Wallula Project CCS research • Interviews and Initial community
Sky Carbon (United States) developer at a paper mill focus groups resistance; project
Sequestration • Communications was reconfigured and
Partnership about project made moved to a new site
(BSCSP) publicly available where local community
supports project.
• Site tours for public
FutureGen FutureGen National Research- • Economic Strong community
and DoE (United States) project oriented IGCC development support for hosting
developer, with CCS perspective the original project;
local project (1Mtpa CO2) emphasised later rejection due to
team, and • Educational project’s redesign,
community demonstrations reducing the perceived
representative and meetings with benefit for the local
local residents community.
• Public hearings
C02CRC Otway Project Research-scale • Formal social science Project supported by
(Australia) developer injection assessment and two- local community.
(65KT to date) way consultation plan
• Formed a community
reference group
• Project has a
community liaison
150
Table 18 Snapshot of public engagement case studies24

PROJECT AUTHOR PROJECT KEY ENGAGEMENT
LEADER CASE STUDY PERSPECTIVE TYPE TOOLS USED PROJECT OUTCOME
Jamestown, Jamestown Community 50MW new • Scoping meetings Strong opposition to
New York, (United States) opposition coal plant with • Informational project remains while
Board of Public CCS research community developers continue
Utilities (JBPU) meetings to seek full financing.
• Workshops on CCS
• Media attention
BP Alternative Carson Project 500MW IGCC • Briefings with state Project developer did
Energy and (United States) developer with CCS and local officials not proceed with this
Mission Energy (2Mtpa CO2) • Briefings for key project, and is instead
community groups looking at a similar
project in another
• Emphasis on
location.
project benefits
Total Lacq Project CCS • Early briefings Plant began operations
(France) implementer demonstration with government in January 2010.
with regulators
oxycombustion • Public consultation
(120,000
• Site visits
tonnes CO2
per 2 yrs) • Individual meetings
with neighbours
and letters
• Municipality
workshop
• Public inquiry
German CO2Sink Ketzin Project Research-scale • Public presentations Project supported
Research (Germany) implementer injection • Internet site by local community.
Centre for
• Site tours
Geosciences
and
Verbundnetz
Gas
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 significant 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

• ZeroGen25 (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 first 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 pre-
combustion 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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$bn 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Power generation
Gas processing (LNG)
Various
(b) by capture technology
US$bn 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Pre-combustion
Oxyfuel
Post-combustion
Gas processing
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
CO2 capture and storage incentive program
ISEEE
Nova Scotia storage assessment
IPAC – CO2
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-CO2
Allocated
Unallocated
Since 2005, Canada has committed in excess of US$3 billion in provincial and federal government public
financial 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 specifically 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 CO2 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 financial support to a
common set of projects.
156
APPENDICES
As mentioned above, among the countries making major public financial commitments to CCS, Canada is
among the leaders in terms of having allocated 93 per cent of its program commitments to specific 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 financial 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 verification activities
at the Weyburn-Midale EOR and CCS project, and for initial engineering studies into capturing and storing
CO2 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 CO2 at two oil
sands upgraders and one fertiliser plant in Alberta, two post-combustion capture based projects at coal-fired
power plants in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and one project in Alberta based on cleaning up syngas after
underground coal gasification for use at an adjacent power plant.
Most demonstration projects that are receiving significant financial support from governments are also relying
on revenues from undertaking CO2 storage in conjunction with EOR (Figure B-4b). Of the major large-scale
integrated demonstration projects, five 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

Power generation
Coal gasification
Gas processing
(b) by storage
US$bn 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
EOR
TBD/not specified
157
European Union
Figure A-5 European Union funding program summary
US$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 first 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 financial 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 CO2 emissions;
• plan to be operational by 2015;
• transport and safe geologic storage of CO2 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 Hatfield29
(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$239 million).
All projects selected under the EEPR are in the power generation industry and, at this stage, none intends
to re-use the CO2 for EOR or other purposes.
28
The specific amount to be awarded under the NER300 Decision is still fluctuating due to variations in carbon prices.
29
Powerfuel Plc, owner of the Hatfield project, was placed into administrative receivership in early December 2010.
158
APPENDICES
Figure A-6 Public funding committed to large-scale demonstration projects in the European Union
(a) by capture technology
US$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 CO2 emissions allowances. It was first announced in 2008, then
confirmed 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
first tranche of up to eight large-scale CCS projects and 34 renewable energy projects. Successful projects
are expected to be announced in the first 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 CO2
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$32 million).
Republic of Korea
Figure A-8 Republic of Korea funding program summary
US$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 financial 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 CO2 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-fired 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-fired
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 first quarter of 2012.
The final 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$146 million for the TCM.
32
See case study in 2009 Strategic Analysis, Report 3: Policies and Legislation Framing Carbon Capture and Storage Globally.
161
United Kingdom
Figure A-10 United Kingdom funding program summary
US$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 first 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
reaffirmed 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-fired power station;
• store the CO2 offshore in geological storage sites;
• be operational by 2014; and
• capture 90 per cent of CO2 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 final competition winner, from a field 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 final
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 first 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
CO2 sequestration training and research
FEED study grants (Illinois)
Allocated
Unallocated
The United States currently leads the world in providing public financial 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 gasification projects that incorporate CCS or other emissions
reduction technologies.
Several state governments have also enacted programs that include public financial 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 significant 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 financial 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$10-20 per tonne
of CO2 injected.
163
Figure A-12 Public funding committed to CCS in the United States
US$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-five per cent of all federal grant funding committed to CCS has been allocated (though not necessarily
transferred) to specific projects. This compares to only 43 per cent of federal tax incentives that have been
allocated to specific 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$1 billion was awarded to R&D and
smaller-scale pilot projects. As with programs in most countries, this reflects the capital intensity of demonstration
projects and their current lack of market incentives. Distribution across different types of demonstration projects
is similar to the global trend when it comes to industry, with a concentration of financial support for coal-fired
power generation, but also significant support for CCS in other industrial sectors such as synthetic gas and
hydrogen production.
The United States differs from the global trend, particularly compared to Europe, when it comes to the
distribution of financial support to large-scale demonstrations across capture technology and storage types.
Sixty per cent of financial support was allocated to projects using pre-combustion capture combined with
gasification technologies, both for IGCC plants and other industrial gasification processes. Twenty per cent
was allocated to oxyfuel capture, reflecting the strong financial commitment to support FutureGen 2.0.
Thirteen per cent went to large-scale demonstration based on post-combustion capture.
Regarding CO2 storage, a much larger share of financial support (60 per cent) compared to the global
average is going to CCS projects that are being done in conjunction with the beneficial reuse of CO2 for EOR.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, this reflects an established CO2-based EOR industry in the United
States, as well as opportunities for growth and the inclusion of permanent CO2 storage through adequate
site assessment, monitoring and reporting.
164
APPENDICES
Figure A-13 Public funding committed to large-scale demonstration CCS projects in the United States33
(a) by industry34
US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5
Power generation
Coal gasification
Oil & fertiliser
Biofuels
(b) by capture technology
US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5
Pre-combustion
Oxyfuel
Post-combustion
Gas processing
(c) by facility for power generation projects
US$bn 0 1 2 3 4 5
IGCC
Oxyfuel
Coal post-combustion
(d) by storage type35
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 CO2 from various industries.
35
Additionally, US$500,000 in funding was provisioned for a project intending to store CO2 in basalt formations (Battelle Boise White Paper Mill).
165
Table A-1 Public funding awarded to large-scale projects in the power sector

AUSTRALIA
FUNDING VOL. CO2
PROJECT (US$M) (Mtpa)
Pre-combustion capture
Wandoan Power 22.7 2.5
CCS Flagships 15.3
Queensland Clean Coal Technology Fund 7.4
36
ZeroGen 146.9 2
CCS Flagships 46.5
Queensland Clean Coal Technology Fund 100.4
Various facilities
CarbonNet 197.7 3.3
CCS Flagships 25.9
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
CCS Flagships 0.5
Coal Industry Development (Western Australia) 9.8
CANADA
FUNDING VOL. CO2
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
FUNDING VOL. CO2
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
37
Kårstø (Norway) 122.3 1
Subsidy from 2008 Norwegian Budget 27.5
38
Kingsnorth Demo Plant (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
Porto Tolle (Italy) 132.6 1
ROAD (Netherlands) 437.6 1.1
Subsidy from the Government of the Netherlands 198.9
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
FUNDING VOL. CO2
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
FUNDING VOL. CO2
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 CO2 Capture 334 1.5
Antelope Valley Station39 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
FUNDING VOL. CO2
PROJECT INDUSTRY (US$M) (Mtpa)
Gas processing
Gorgon Project LNG processing 58.8 3.4-4
Low Emission Technology Demonstration Fund 58.8
CANADA
FUNDING VOL. CO2
Enhance Energy’s Alberta Carbon Trunk Line Oil refinery & fertiliser 552 1.8
Weyburn-Midale Storage Project Synfuels (SNG) 36.0 3
CO2 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
FUNDING VOL. CO2
Tomakomai Iron/Steel 208.2 TBD
Government subsidy via the Japan CCS Company 208.2
169
UNITED STATES
FUNDING VOL. CO2
Pre-combustion
Faustina Hydrogen Coal-to-liquids 121.7 1.5
Federal Power Sector and Industrial Gasification 121.7
Tax Credits
Lake Charles Gasification SNG 399.1 ≥4
Illinois FEED Grants 10.0
Federal Power Sector and Industrial Gasification 128.3
Tax Credits
Post-combustion
Boise White Paper Mill Pulp & paper 0.5 0.72
CEMEX – CO2 Plant Cement 1.1 1
Gas processing
Air Products Project Oil refinery 254.6 1
ADM Company Illinois Industrial CCS Ethanol plant 100.5 1
Praxair40 Oil refinery 1.7 1
Various facilities
Northern California CO2 Reduction Project Various facilities 3.0 1
Shell Mississippi CO2 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
define project stages, sometimes using different terminology, but all effectively use the asset lifecycle model.
This framework reflects the decision points in a project lifecycle where developers either decide to continue
to commit resources to refine the project further (gateways) or assess that future benefits will not cover the
expected costs.
FINAL INVESTMENT DECISION
PLANNING ACTIVE
Project phase
IDENTIFY EVALUATE DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE
Developer’s Establish 'JOBMJTFTDPQF %FUBJMFEEFTJHO 0QFSBUF

Establish
goals EFWFMPQNFOU and execution and construction maintain and
preliminary
scope and options and plan JNQSPWFDPTUT
business execution
strategy strategy
Select concept Start-up

Activities
t4DPQJOHBOE t1SFGFBTJCJMJUZ t'FBTJCJMJUZ t%FUBJMFE t"TTFU
screening studies studies engineering management
studies t$PODFQUVBM t1SFMJNJOBSZ t$POTUSVDUJPO t#VTJOFTT
t&TUJNBUFPWFSBMM design engineering t$PNNJTTJPOJOH JNQSPWFNFOU
project capital t&TUJNBUFPWFSBMM '&&%
PGQMBOU t0QFSBUJPOTBOE
cost (±30-35%) project capital t&TUJNBUFPWFSBMM t&TUBCMJTI maintenance
and operating cost (±20-25%) project capital operating support
costs (±15-20%) and operating cost (±10-15%) organisation
t*EFOUJGZPQUJPOT costs (±10-15%) and operating
to be assessed t$POUSBDU costs (±5%)
JO&WBMVBUFTUBHF planning t5FOEFSBOETFMFDU
an engineering,
procurement and
construction
supplier
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 definition 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 CO2 from one of its natural gas processing facilities and inject and store the
CO2 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 identified.
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 CO2 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 field is suitable for CO2 injection based on its proximity to the concentrated CO2, the
stage of oil production at the field and other site factors.
For each option the costs, benefits, risks and opportunities would be identified. 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 Define stage. The preferred option must
be sufficiently defined. No further key options are to be studied in the Define stage.
In the Define 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 specific 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 finance or funding opportunities and tendering for and selecting an
engineering, procurement and contracting supplier.
At the end of the Define stage, the level of project definition must be sufficient to allow for FID to be made.
The level of investment definition typically required for FID is +/- 10-15 per cent for overall project capital costs
and +/- 5-10 per cent (closer to five) 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 finalised. 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
MINIMUM SIZE UPPER
UNIT DEFINING BOUND OF
MEASUREMENT “COMMERCIAL- COMMERCIAL PER CENT OF MINIMUM SIZE OR PROJECT
INDUSTRY UNITS SCALE”1 SIZE UNIT2 COMMERCIAL-SCALE LARGER SCALE
Electric MWe, net 80 100% ≤ Scale 80 ≤ Scale Commercial

power 10% ≤ Scale < 100% 8.0 ≤ Scale < 80 Demonstration
– biomass
5% ≤ Scale < 10% 4.0 ≤ Scale < 8.0 Pilot
Scale < 5% Scale < 4.0 Bench
3
power – 10% ≤ Scale < 100% 50 ≤ Scale < 500 Demonstration
coal 950
5% ≤ Scale < 10% 25 ≤ Scale < 50 Pilot
Scale < 5% Scale < 25 Bench
power – 10% ≤ Scale < 100% 40 ≤ Scale < 400 Demonstration
gas
5% ≤ Scale < 10% 20 ≤ Scale < 40 Pilot
Scale < 5% Scale < 20 Bench
Aluminium Metric 50,000 900,000 100% ≤ Scale 50,000 ≤ Scale Commercial
industry tonnes/year 10% ≤ Scale < 100% 5,000 ≤ Scale < 50,000 Demonstration
5% ≤ Scale < 10% 2,500 ≤ Scale < 5,000 Pilot
Scale < 5% Scale < 2,500 Bench
Cement Metric 150,000 3,100,000 100% ≤ Scale 150,000 ≤ Scale Commercial
industry tonnes/year 10% ≤ Scale < 100% 15,000 ≤ Scale < 150,000 Demonstration
Petro- Barrels per 100,000 400,000 100% ≤ Scale 100,000 ≤ Scale Commercial
chemicals Stream Day 10% ≤ Scale < 100% 10,000 ≤ Scale < 100,000 Demonstration
(BPSD)
Iron and Metric 100,000 15,000,000 100% ≤ Scale 100,000 ≤ Scale Commercial
steel tonnes/year 10% ≤ Scale < 100% 10,000 ≤ Scale < 100,000 Demonstration
CO2 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
Scale < 2.5% Scale < 25,000 Pilot
storage
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 STATE/DISTRICT, CAPTURE TRANSPORT STORAGE
2010 NAME COUNTRY FACILITY CAPTURE TYPE TYPE TYPE
Identify
1 Chemical Plant, Shanxi Province, Coal-to-liquids plant Pre- Pipeline Various onshore storage
Yulin China combustion options being considered
2 CO2 Global – New Mexico, 150MWe oxyfuel Oxyfuel 48.3km Onshore EOR
Project Viking United States combustion using synthetic combustion pipeline
fuel oil
3 Coolimba Power Western Australia, 2x200MW or 3x150MW Post- 20-80km Onshore depleted oil and
Project Australia coal-fired CFB power plant combustion pipeline gas reservoirs
4 FutureGen 2.0 Illinois, 200MW coal-fired Oxyfuel Pipeline Various onshore storage
United States oxyfuel combustion combustion options being considered
plant
5 Good Spring Pennsylvania, 270MW coal-fired IGCC Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR and deep
IGCC United States power plant combustion saline formations
6 Immingham Lincolnshire, 800-1,200MW multi-fuel Pre- 300km Offshore geological

Carbon Capture England, United IGCC power plant at oil combustion pipeline
and Storage Kingdom refinery
Project
7 Kedzierzyn Opolskie, Poland 300MW gross Pre- Pipeline Onshore deep saline
Polygeneration polygeneration power plant combustion formations
Power Plant
8 Korea-CCS2 Republic of Korea 300MW coal-fired oxyfuel Oxyfuel Pipeline then Offshore deep saline
or IGCC power plant or pre- 800km by formations
combustion ship
9 North East CCS Teeside, England, 850MW coal-fired IGCC Pre- 225km Offshore deep saline
Cluster United Kingdom and 420MW coal/biomass combustion pipeline formations
fired power plants
10 Shenhua Ph 2 Inner Mongolia, Coal-to-liquids plant Pre- 30-100km Deep saline formations
China combustion unspecified
transport
Evaluate
11 Boise White Washington State, Pulp and paper mill Post- Not specified Basalt formations
Paper Mill United States combustion
174
APPENDICES
LSIP TRAFFIC LIGHT CLASSIFICATIONS AGAINST G8 CRITERIA

4. 5.
3. STORAGE MEASUREMENT, 6.
1. 2. PROJECTS SITE AND MONITORING AND PUBLIC 7. ESTABLISHED
LARGE- FULL OPERATION TRANSPORT VERIFICATION ENGAGEMENT PUBLIC/PRIVATE PROJECT
SCALE INTEGRATION SCHEDULE DEFINITION (MMV) STRATEGIES SECTOR SUPPORT NOTES
5-10Mtpa Integrated By 2020 Very little Intended Yes Insufficient Same asset lifecycle
definition information provided stage in 2009
1.2Mtpa Integrated with 2014 Yes Limited MMV Intended No Identified as new
dependency on (EOR) project in 2010
partners
2Mtpa Integrated 2015 Limited Intended Yes No Was in Evaluate in
definition 2009, reassessed
to Identify in 2010
1Mtpa Integrated By 2020 Very little Intended Intended Adequate to Identified as a new
definition complete current project in 2010 –
asset lifecycle stage originating from the
cancelled FutureGen
Project
1Mtpa Integrated, with 2015 Limited Insufficient Intended No Identified as a new
agreements still definition information project in 2010
being pursued provided
4-7Mtpa Integrated with By 2020 Very little Intended Intended Insufficient Evolved to be
dependency on definition information provided included in 2010 LSIP
partners list as not enough
information on status
and asset lifecycle
stage was known in
2009
2.47Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Intended Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
dependency on definition complete current stage in 2009
partners asset lifecycle stage
1.5- Integrated, with 2019 Very little Intended Intended Adequate to Identified as a new
2.5Mtpa agreements still definition complete current project in 2010
being pursued asset lifecycle stage
7.5Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Intended Adequate to Reassessed from
dependency on definition complete current Evaluate in 2009
partners asset lifecycle stage to Identify in 2010
1Mtpa Integrated with By 2020 Yes Yes Yes Adequate to Identified as new
dependency on complete current project in 2010
0.72Mtpa Integrated 2014 Limited Insufficient Intended No Identified as new

definition information project in 2010
provided
175
LSIP
12 Bow City Alberta, Canada 1,000MW coal-fired Post- 6-30km Onshore EOR
power plant combustion pipeline
13 Browse LNG Western Australia, Liquefied natural gas Gas Pipeline Deep saline formations
Australia (LNG) plant processing or depleted oil and gas
reservoirs
14 Cash Creek Kentucky, United 630MW net coal IGCC Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR
States power plant combustion
15 CEMEX CO2 United States Cement plant Post- Pipeline Not specified
Capture Plant combustion
16 Faustina Louisiana, United Coal-to-liquids plant Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR

Hydrogen States combustion
17 Freeport Texas, United Petcoke to SNG plant Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR
Gasification States (plus 400MW electricity combustion
from excess steam)
18 South Heart North Dakota, 175MW net output Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR
IGCC United States lignite-fired IGCC plant combustion
19 GreenGen Tianjin, China 1x400MW (phase III) Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR
coal-fired IGCC power plant combustion
20 Hatfield South Yorkshire, 2x450MW gross coal-fired Pre- 175km Offshore deep saline
England, United IGCC power plant combustion pipeline formations or depleted oil
Kingdom and gas reservoirs
21 Hunterston North Ayrshire, 2x926MW multi-fuel Post- Pipeline Offshore depleted oil and
Power APL Scotland, United (coal/biomass)-fired combustion gas reservoirs
Kingdom power plant
22 Indiana Indiana, Coal to SNG plant Pre- 7.2km Onshore EOR

Gasification United States combustion pipeline
176
APPENDICES

4. 5.
1Mtpa Integrated, with 2016 Limited Intended Intended No Evolved to be

agreements still definition included in 2010 LSIP
being pursued list as not enough
information on CO2
volume was known in
2009
3Mtpa Integrated 2017 Limited Insufficient Intended Insufficient Same asset lifecycle
definition information information provided stage in 2009
provided
2Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Insufficient Yes No Same asset lifecycle
dependency on definition information stage in 2009*
partners provided
1Mtpa Integrated 2015† Very little Insufficient Intended No Identified as a new
definition information project in 2010
provided
1.5Mtpa Integrated with By 2020 Yes Insufficient Intended No Evolved to be
dependency on information included in 2010 LSIP
partners provided list as not enough
information on scale
and integration was
known in 2009
2Mtpa Integrated, with 2013 Very little Insufficient Intended No Was in Define in
agreements still definition information 2009, reassessed
being pursued provided to Evaluate in 2010
2.1Mtpa Integrated, with 2017 Evolved to be included
uncertainty over in 2010 LSIP list as
agreements was identified as only
capture ready in 2009
2Mtpa Integrated, with 2016 Very little Intended Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
agreements still definition complete current stage in 2009
5Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
2Mtpa Integrated, with 2017 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Evolved to be included
agreements still definition complete current in 2010 LSIP list as
being pursued asset lifecycle stage was identified as only
capture ready in 2009
1Mtpa Integrated, with By 2020 Yes Insufficient Yes No Evolved to be included
agreements still information in 2010 LSIP list as
being pursued provided was identified as
delayed in 2009
177
LSIP
23 Korea-CCS-1 Republic of Korea 300MW coal-fired power Post- Pipeline then Offshore deep saline
plant combustion 250km ship formations
24 Leucadia Mississippi, Petcoke to SNG plant Pre- 176km Onshore EOR

Mississippi United States combustion pipeline
25 Mongstad CCS Hordaland, Natural gas-fired combined Post- Pipeline Offshore deep saline
(full scale) Norway heat (350MW) and power combustion formations
(280MW) plant
26 Peterhead Aberdeenshire, 400MW gas-fired power Post- Pipeline Various offshore

Scotland, United plant combustion storage options being
Kingdom considered.
27 Romanian CCS Oltenia, Romania 330MW lignite fired power Post- 20-50km Onshore deep saline
Demo plant combustion pipeline formations
28 Rotterdam CCS Rotterdam, Range of CO2 capture Various 25-150km Offshore depleted oil and
Network Netherlands facilities shipping or gas reservoirs
common
carrier
pipeline
29 SCS Energy New Jersey, 500MW coal-fired IGCC Pre- 160km Offshore deep saline
PurGen One United States power plant combustion pipeline formations
30 Shell CO2 Louisiana, Various CO2 capture Various Pipeline Onshore deep saline
United States facilities formations
31 Southland CTF Southland, Coal to fertiliser plant Pre- 100km Onshore deep saline
Project New Zealand combustion pipeline formations
32 Spectra Fort British Columbia, Natural gas processing Gas 30km Onshore deep saline
Nelson Canada plant processing pipeline formations
178
APPENDICES

4. 5.
1.5Mtpa Integrated 2017 Limited Intended Intended Adequate to Identified as a new

definition complete current project in 2010
asset lifecycle stage
4Mtpa Integrated, with 2014 Yes Limited MMV Yes No Identified as a new
agreements still (EOR) project in 2010
being pursued
1Mtpa Integrated 2020 Limited Intended Intended Adequate to Evolved to be
definition complete current included in 2010 LSIP
asset lifecycle stage list as not enough
and integration was
known in 2009
1Mtpa Integrated By 2020 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Evolved to be included
definition complete current in 2010 LSIP list as
asset lifecycle stage was identified as
delayed in 2009
1.5Mtpa Integrated 2015 Limited Intended Intended Adequate to Identified as a new
3.35Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Identified as a new
(in dependency on definition complete current project in 2010
addition partners asset lifecycle stage
to ROAD
and Air
Liquide)
2.6Mtpa Integrated, with 2016 Yes Intended Yes Adequate to Identified as a new
agreements still complete current project in 2010
1Mtpa Integrated, with 2015† Limited Intended Yes No Identified as a new
agreements still definition project in 2010
being pursued
1.2Mtpa Integrated 2016 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Identified as a new
1.2Mtpa Integrated 2014 Yes Yes Intended Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
(demo complete current stage in 2009
2010- asset lifecycle stage
2017),
2.9Mtpa
after
179
LSIP
33 Swan Hills Alberta, Canada In situ coal gasification Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR
(syngas) with 300MW net combustion
combined cycle power plant
34 Sweeny Texas, 680MW petcoke IGCC Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR

Gasification United States power plant combustion
35 Taylorville IGCC Illinois, 716MW gross hybrid IGCC Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR
United States coal power plant combustion
36 The Collie Hub Western Australia, Various CO2 capture Pre- 80km Onshore deep saline
Australia facilities combustion pipeline formations
and post-
combustion
37 Victorian Victoria, Australia Various CO2 capture Various 80-150km Near shore deep saline
CarbonNet facilities pipeline formations
38 Wandoan Power Queensland, 400MW net coal-fired IGCC Pre- 10-180km Onshore beneficial reuse
Australia power plant combustion pipeline or deep saline formations
Define
39 AEP West Virginia, 235MWe slipstream from Post- <30km Onshore deep saline
Mountaineer United States 1,300MW net coal-fired combustion pipeline formations
235-MWe CO2 power plant
Capture
40 Air Liquide Rotterdam, Hydrogen Production Pre- Ship Offshore EOR
Netherlands combustion
41 Air Products Texas, Hydrogen production at oil Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR
Project United States refinery combustion
42 ADM Company Illinois, Ethanol plant Gas 1.6km Onshore deep saline
Illinois Industrial United States processing pipeline formations
CCS
43 Belchatow Łódź– Voivodeship, 260MW equivalent on Post- 61-140km Onshore deep saline
Poland 858MW lignite-fired combustion pipeline formations
power plant
44 SaskPower Saskatchewan, 115MWe net coal-fired Post- <100km EOR
Boundary Dam Canada power plant combustion pipeline
3
180
APPENDICES

4. 5.
1.4Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Evolved to be

dependency on definition complete current included in 2010 LSIP
partners asset lifecycle stage list as not enough
and integration was
known in 2009
3Mtpa Integrated, with 2015 Limited Insufficient Intended No Identified as a new
agreements still definition information project in 2010
being pursued provided
1.9Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
2.5- Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Identified as a new
7.5Mtpa dependency on definition complete current project in 2010
3.3Mtpa Integrated, with 2018 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Identified as a new
agreements still definition complete current project in 2010
2.5Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
1.5Mtpa Integrated 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Progressed from

definition complete current Identify in 2009
asset lifecycle stage to Define in 2010
0.55Mtpa Integrated, with 2012 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Identified as a new
agreements still definition complete current project in 2010
1Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Yes Limited MMV Yes Adequate to Identified as a new
dependency on (EOR) complete current project in 2010
partners. asset lifecycle stage
1Mtpa Insufficient 2012 Limited Insufficient Intended Adequate to Identified as a new
information definition information complete current project in 2010
provided provided asset lifecycle stage
definition complete current Evaluate in 2009
1Mtpa Integrated 2013 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
definition complete current stage in 2009*
181
LSIP
45 Coffeyville Kansas, Fertiliser plant Pre- Pipeline EOR

Gasification United States combustion
Plant
46 Dongguan Guangdong, China 800MW net coal-fired IGCC Pre- 100km Offshore depleted oil and
power plant combustion pipeline gas reservoirs
47 Eemshaven Groningen, 1,200MW multi-fueI-fired Pre- Pipeline Depleted oil and gas
Nuon Magnum Netherlands IGCC power plant combustion reservoirs
48 Entergy Nelson Louisiana, 585MW coal-fired power Post- <160km Onshore EOR
6 CCS Project United States plant combustion pipeline
49 HECA California, 250MW net multi-fuel-fired Pre- 6.4km Onshore EOR

United States IGCC power plant combustion pipeline
50 HPAD Western Region, 400MW net hydrogen Pre- Pipeline Onshore EOR
United Arab power plant combustion
Emirates
51 Lake Charles Louisiana, Petcoke to SNG plant Pre- 19.2km Onshore EOR
Gasification United States combustion pipeline
52 Lianyungang Jiangsu, China 1,200MW IGCC and Pre- 100km Onshore deep saline
2x1,300MW ultra combustion pipeline formations
supercritical PC plants and post-
coproduction power/ combustion
chemical
53 Longannet Fife, Scotland, 2x600MW units of a Post- Pipeline Offshore depleted oil and
United Kingdom coal-fired power plant with combustion gas reservoirs
co-firing capability
54 Lost Cabin Wyoming, Natural gas processing Gas 370km Onshore EOR
Capture Project United States plant processing pipeline
55 Masdar CCS United Arab Power and aluminium Post- 490km Onshore EOR
Project Emirates plants; Steel plant combustion pipeline
56 Porto Tolle Rovigo, Italy 264MWe equivalent ultra Post- 100km Offshore deep saline
supercritical PC power plant combustion pipeline formations
57 Quest CCS Alberta, Canada Hydrogen production at oil Pre- 80km Onshore deep saline
Project sands upgrader combustion pipeline formations
182
APPENDICES

4. 5.
0.59Mtpa Integrated with By 2020 Yes Limited MMV Intended Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
dependency on (EOR) complete current stage in 2009*
Up to Integrated, with 2015 Yes Yes Yes Adequate to Progressed from
1Mtpa agreements still complete current Evaluate in 2009
being pursued asset lifecycle stage to Define in 2010
1.3Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Yes Yes Intended Adequate to Progressed from
dependency on complete current Identify in 2009
partners asset lifecycle stage to Define in 2010
4Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Yes Limited MMV Intended Adequate to Identified as a new
dependency on (EOR) complete current project in 2010
2Mtpa Integrated with 2016 Yes Yes Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
dependency on complete current stage in 2009
1.7Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Evolved to be included
dependency on definition complete current in 2010 LSIP list as
partners. asset lifecycle stage it is now listed as a
separate project
>4Mtpa Integrated with 2014 Yes Limited MMV Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
dependency on (EOR) complete current stage in 2009*
1Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Yes Yes Adequate to Progressed from
dependency on definition complete current Evaluate in 2009
partners. asset lifecycle stage to Define in 2010
2Mtpa Integrated with 2014 Yes Intended Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
dependency on complete current stage in 2009
1Mtpa Integrated with 2014 Yes Limited MMV Intended Insufficient Identified as a new
dependency on (EOR) information provided project in 2010
partners
4.3Mtpa Integrated, with 2013 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
agreements still definition complete current stage in 2009
1Mtpa Integrated 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Progressed from
1.2Mtpa Integrated 2015 Yes Intended Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
complete current stage in 2009
183
LSIP
58 ROAD Rotterdam, 250MW equivalent on Post- 25km Offshore depleted oil and
Netherlands 1,070MW coal/biomass- combustion pipeline gas reservoirs
fired power plant
59 RWE Groningen, 780MW net coal-fired Post- 80km Depleted oil and gas
Eemshaven Netherlands power plant (biomass in combustion pipeline reservoirs
future)
60 Texas Clean Texas, 400MW coal-fired IGCC Pre- 132km Onshore EOR
Energy Project United States power/ poly-geneneration combustion pipeline
(NowGen) plant
61 Tenaska Texas, 600MW net supercritical Post- Pipeline Onshore EOR
Trailblazer United States PC power plant combustion
62 The Compostilla Leon, Spain 322MWe (Phase 2) coal- Oxyfuel 150km Onshore deep saline
Project fired oxyfuel combustion combustion pipeline formations
power plant
63 Transalta Alberta, Canada 450MW gross coal-fired Post- 50km Onshore EOR and deep
Project Pioneer power plant combustion pipeline saline formations
64 ULCOS Lorraine, France Steel plant Post- 100km Onshore deep saline
Florange combustion pipeline formations
65 Vattenfall Brandenburg, 250MW lignite fired oxyfuel Oxyfuel 60-300km Onshore deep saline
Jänschwalde Germany and 50MW lignite fired combustion pipeline formations
power plant and post-
combustion
Execute
66 Enhance Energy Alberta, Canada Fertiliser production and Pre- 240km Onshore EOR
EOR Project hydrogen production at combustion pipeline
the oil refinery (Fertiliser)
and pre-
combustion
(oil refinery)
67 Gorgon Project Western Australia, Liquefied natural gas (LNG) Gas 10km Onshore deep saline
Australia processing plant processing pipeline formations
68 Occidental Gas Texas, Natural gas processing Gas 256km Onshore EOR
Processing United States plant processing pipeline
Plant
184
APPENDICES

4. 5.
1.1Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Progressed from
dependency on definition complete current Identify in 2009
partners asset lifecycle stage to Define in 2010
1.1Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Yes Yes Intended Adequate to Progressed from
dependency on complete current Identify in 2009
partners asset lifecycle stage to Define in 2010*
2.7Mtpa Integrated with 2014 Yes Intended Yes Adequate to Identified as a new
dependency on complete current project in 2010
5.75Mtpa Integrated, with 2016 Limited Insufficient Yes Adequate to Progressed from
agreements still definition information complete current Evaluate in 2009
being pursued provided asset lifecycle stage to Define in 2010
1Mtpa Integrated with 2015 Limited Intended Yes Adequate to Same asset lifecycle
dependency on definition complete current stage in 2009*
0.5Mtpa Integrated 2015 Limited Intended Intended Adequate to Evolved to be
definition complete current included in 2010 LSIP
asset lifecycle stage list as not enough
and integration was
known in 2009
1.8Mtpa Integrated with 2012 Yes Yes Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle
dependency on stage in 2009
partners
3.4- Integrated 2014 Yes Yes Yes Yes Progressed from

4Mtpa Define in 2009 to
Execute in 2010
9Mtpa Integrated with 2011 Yes Limited MMV Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle
dependency on (EOR) stage in 2009*
partners
185
LSIP
69 Southern Mississippi, 582MW net coal-fired Pre- 97.6km Onshore EOR

Company IGCC United States IGCC power plant combustion pipeline
Operate
70 Enid Fertilizer Oklahoma, Fertiliser plant Pre- 192km Onshore EOR
United States combustion pipeline
71 In Salah Ouargla Wilaya, Natural gas processing Gas 14km Onshore deep saline
Algeria plant processing pipeline formations
72 Rangely Colorado, Natural gas processing Gas 285km Onshore EOR
United States plant processing pipeline
73 Salt Creek EOR Wyoming, Natural gas processing Gas 201km Onshore EOR
United States plant processing pipeline
74 Sharon Ridge Texas, Natural gas processing Gas Pipeline Onshore EOR
United States plants processing (CRC and
Val Verde)
75 Sleipner North Sea, Norway Natural gas processing Gas Minimal Offshore deep saline
platform processing (capture formations
same as
storage
location)
76 Snøhvit North Sea, Norway Liquefied natural gas (LNG) Gas 154km Offshore deep saline
plant processing pipeline formations
77 Weyburn-Midale Saskatchewan, Synfuels plant including Pre- 330km Onshore EOR
Storage Project Canada SNG combustion pipeline
†
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 sufficient information was not provided to undertake a traffic light assessment.
186
APPENDICES

4. 5.
2.5Mtpa Integrated with 2014 Yes Limited MMV Yes Yes Evolved to be
dependency on (EOR) included in 2010 LSIP
partners list as not enough
information on CO2
volume was known in
2009
0.68Mtpa Integrated with 2003 Yes Limited MMV Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle
dependency on (EOR) stage in 2009*
partners
1Mtpa Integrated 2004 Yes Yes Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle
stage in 2009
1Mtpa Integrated with 1986 Yes Yes Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle
partners
dependency on (EOR) stage in 2009
partners
dependency on (EOR) stage in 2009
partners
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 Integrated with 2000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Same asset lifecycle
partners
187
Table C-3 Cancelled or delayed LSIPs

CHANGES ASSET
FROM 2009 LIFECYCLE
TO 2010 STAGE PROJECT NAME NOTES COUNTRY
Cancelled Identify Carbon Store Australia LASSIE Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been replaced Australia
with CarbonNet
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 CO2 Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been cancelled Netherlands
Power Plant Project
Cancelled Identify BKK Gasskraftverk Mongstad Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been cancelled Norway
(BKK CCGT Mongstad)
Cancelled Evaluate ZeroGen Commercial Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been cancelled Australia
Scale Project
Cancelled Define FINNCAP – Meri Pori Progressed from Evaluate in 2009 to Define in Finland
CCS Project 2010, has since been cancelled
Cancelled Define Barendrecht Shell Progressed from Identify in 2009 to Define in Netherlands
2010, has since been cancelled
Cancelled Define FutureGen Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been replaced United States
with FutureGen 2.0
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 Germany
2010, has since been delayed
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 – Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed Canada
Genesee CCS Project – IGCC
Delayed Define Sargas Husnes Clean Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed Norway
Coal Project
Delayed Define Kingsnorth Demo Plant Progressed from Evaluate in 2009 to Define in United Kingdom
Delayed Define Tilbury Clean Coal Power Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed United Kingdom
Station
Delayed Evaluate Southern California Edison Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed United States
IGCC Project
Delayed Define Antelope Valley Station Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed United States
Post-Combustion CO2 Capture
Delayed Define SWP – Development Phase – Was in 2009 LSIP list, has since been delayed United States
Deep Saline Sequestration
188
APPENDICES
Table C-4 Traffic light definitions used to classify LSIPs against the G8 criteria
SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC PROJECT
G8 FULL FULL-SCALE STORAGE SITE ENGAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
CRITERIA SCALE INTEGRATION OPERATION LOCATION MMV STRATEGY & FUNDING PLANS
Green The project is The project is A detailed The primary An MMV Appropriate Major milestones
either: integrated. If it project site is plan has strategies have been
(a) coal-fired is dependent schedule identified with been (e.g. identified and
power project on other has been site character- developed stakeholder adequate
that captures entities for any developed. isation that will outreach funding is in
and stores at part of the CCS Proposed underway provide a strategy and place to fund the
least 80 per chain, parties timeframes and preferred high level of engagement entire project’s
cent of 1Mtpa have reached are reasonably CO2 transport confidence plan) are advancement to
CO2; or agreements on achievable to routes linking that in place to operation.
funding and meet full-scale the capture sequestered engage the
(b) natural
structures. operation by site and the CO2 will public and to
gas-fired
2020. storage site be closed incorporate
power plant,
have been securely. input into the
industrial or
identified. project.
natural gas
processing
installation
captures and
stores at least
80 per cent of
500ktpa CO2.
Amber The project has The project A detailed Possible The project The project Major milestones
specified a range intends to be project storage sites intends to intends to have been
that could meet integrated, schedule has and CO2 develop and develop identified and
the target. but if it is not yet been transport implement appropriate adequate
dependent on developed. routes have an MMV plan strategies to funding has
other entities Proposed been identified to provide a engage the been received to
for any part timeframes but the level high level of public and to support activities
of the CCS are reasonably of definition of confidence incorporate required in the
chain, the achievable to these options that input into the project’s current
parties have meet full-scale is limited and sequestered project. stage in the asset
not reached operation by detailed work CO2 will lifecycle.
agreement 2020. is yet to begin. be stored
on funding or securely
structures. at the
appropriate
stage of its
development.
Red The project does The project A detailed Very little The project The project Funding has not
not meet the does not project definition does not has given no been received to
scale. intend to be schedule has around the intend to consideration support activities
integrated. not yet been storage site develop an to the required in the
developed. and transport MMV plan development project’s current
Proposed routes. to provide a of stage in the asset
timeframes high level of appropriate lifecycle.
are extremely confidence strategies to
tight and are that engage the
unlikely to be sequestered public and to
achievable to CO2 will incorporate
meet full-scale be stored input into the
operation by securely. project.
2020.
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 Australian Mapping and Storage Onshore and Reports on 13 highest potential basins, September 2009
Infrastructure Task Force offshore Australia montage summaries plus a suite of
(13 Basins) economics and supplementary reports
(Australian Carbon Storage Taskforce
2009.)
Summary report released. Main

report released in 2010.
Australia Queensland Regional 36 Basins in To better understand the impact December 2009
Assessment Queensland of CO2 storage on other resources
within the region
Australia Gippsland Dynamic Victorian Gippsland To better understand the impact of In preparation
Modelling/Vic GCS Basin CO2 storage on other resources within
the region.
South Africa National Storage Atlas South Africa First edition released in September September 2010
2010
Brazil CARBMAP Brazil East coast Assessments for storage potential have
continental shelf recently commenced. EOR Studies
United States/ North American Storage Atlas Third extended edition December 2010
Canada
China Regional Opportunities for All Chinese Basins Dahowski, R. T., Li, X., Davidson, In preparation
Carbon Dioxide Capture and C. L. Wei, N. and Dooley, J. J., 2009.
Storage in China
Potential Capacity and Evaluation
Potential Capacity and Full Basin review Storage in China Project – China
Evaluation Storage in China Geological Survey and others-
Project commenced in 2009
Europe European Union Geocapacity 22 Countries European capacity in member states 2008
EU Geocapacity (2008)
190
APPENDICES
Table C-6 Initiatives for establishing new CO2 networks for CCS41

INITIAL ‘ANCHOR’
DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS (WITH ASSET SCALE NOTES FOR
NAME/REGION OVERVIEW/STATUS LIFECYCLE STAGE) OVERALL NETWORK
1. Rotterdam RCI has developed a CCS business case for a CO2 cluster • Rotterdam Afvang • 5Mtpa, scaling
Climate approach for the Port of Rotterdam area, with pipeline and en Opslag Demo up to potential
Initiative (RCI)42, shipping options. (Define) 25Mtpa
Netherlands • Air Liquide
Connected to multiple storage sites, depleted gas fields in
North Sea in particular. Hydrogen Plant
(Define)
Includes building on existing OCAP pipeline network for
• Capture from
supplying CO2 used commercially in greenhouses.
additional
Signed Letters of Cooperation with 9 companies for possible emitter(s) in the
capture projects (coal power, IGCC, hydrogen plants, etc.). Port of Rotterdam
(Evaluate)
Undertaken comprehensive financial analysis and
independent assessment of storage sites in the Dutch
sector of the North Sea.
2. CCS in Northern Action Plan published in 2009 for developing a CCS • Eemshaven RWE • 2.4Mtpa, scaling
Netherlands, network in Northern Netherlands. (Define) up to potential
Netherlands • Nuon Magnum 12Mtpa
Preferred storage locations identified in three depleted
onshore depleted gas fields located in the north of the (Define)
Netherlands, with more detailed assessment to follow.
3. CO2 Sense, Large concentration of industrial single-source CO2 • Immingham CCS • 9-12Mtpa, scaling
Yorkshire/ Humber, emitters, currently emitting 60Mtpa. Project (Identify); up to potential
United Kingdom potentially integrated 40Mtpa
Targeting depleted gas fields and saline aquifers in
with network
southern North Sea for storage.
plans, but some
Pre-FEED work on network completed in 2010. uncertainty
• Hatfield IGCC
(Evaluate)
4. Scottish Cluster, Scottish CCS Joint Study identified need for developing • Longannet Clean • 20Mtpa; potential
Firth of Forth, capture and storage hubs in Scotland Coal Power Station for being larger
Scotland, United (Define) storage hub for
Preferred initial route being an offshore pipeline from
Kingdom • APL/Hunterston Europe.
Firth of Forth to east cost, with four potential storage
hubs identified in North Sea (Evaluate);
potentially integrated
Possible re-use of existing National Grid natural gas with network
pipelines as North Sea gas production declines. plans, but some
A Scottish Carbon Capture Transport and Storage uncertainty
Development Study will further assess storage capacity.
CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 to greenhouses. Though for the purposes of this report,
RCI is still considered a new CO2 network initiative for the purposes of geological storage.
191

DEMONSTRATION
5. Thames Cluster, Nine existing and future power plants, plus an existing • 16Mtpa, scaling up
Thames and refinery identified for the basis of forming a capture hub. to potential 28Mtpa
Medway Estuaries,
Additional depleted oil and gas fields identified for
United Kingdom
expanding storage hub.
6. North East CCS Advanced work on capturing CO2 from two power plants: • Capture at proposed • 7.5Mtpa, scaling
Cluster, Teeside, Rio Tinto Alcan existing Lynemouth plant and Progressive Eston Grange and up to potential
United Kingdom Energy’s proposed IGCC plant, Eston Grange. existing Lynemouth 15Mtpa
power stations • 250km pipeline
Shared pipeline being planned for transporting CO2 to an
(Identify) to start
identified deep saline formation in central North Sea.
7. Interreg Project, CO2 capture from up to 12 existing sources including Up to 10Mtpa
Skagerrak and refineries and cement, chemical, pulp and paper, and power
Kattegat Regions, plants in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Total emissions
Scandinavia of 12Mtpa.
Potential storage opportunities being explored, including

deep saline formations onshore and offshore of Denmark.
8. Collie Hub CO2 capture from a fertiliser plant, followed by potential • Capture at industrial • Up to 200km
Project, Western capture at proposed power plants and alumina plant. centres of Kwinana pipeline
Australia and Collie, including • 2.5Mtpa, with
Feasibility study and business case being developed.
Perdaman fertiliser plans for scaling
Storage in Southern Perth Basin, with a primary storage site
plant (Evaluate) up
already selected and a pilot injection being planned as part
of an initial ‘enabling’ phase.
9. Victorian CO2 from both existing and proposed coal power stations • Capture at two coal- • 3.3Mtpa, scaling
CarbonNet, in the Latrobe Valley, for onshore storage at a selected deep fired power plants up to potential
Victoria, Australia saline formation, and potentially pilot project looking at (Evaluate) 20Mtpa
mineralisation. • Up to 150km
An overall network feasibility study has been completed pipeline
in 2009, with capture, transport, and storage costs analysed
and financial structure and funding alternatives developed.
Storage characterisation plant has also been developed.
More detailed feasibility studies currently underway for the

various capture options, as well as the transport and storage
systems.
10. Masdar CCS Capture and transportation of CO2 by shared pipeline • Capture at Hydrogen • 6Mtpa by 2015
Project, United system to oil fields for EOR. Power Abu Dhabi onwards
Arab Emirates (HPAD) and • 490km pipeline
CO2 capture from steel, aluminium and power generation
Emirates Alumina
facilities.
and Steel Plants
(Define)
192
APPENDICES

DEMONSTRATION
11. Alberta Carbon The ACTL is a pipeline network for gathering CO2 from • Capture from ACTL
Trunkline (ACTL)/ several sources in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland, and existing fertiliser • 1.8Mtpa, scaling
Integrated CO2 transporting to existing mature oil fields in South-Central plant and then up to potential
Network (ICO2N), Alberta for EOR. from a planned 14.6Mtpa
Alberta, Canada oil refinery, as
An initial supply of CO2 has been confirmed with long-term • 240km pipeline
part of Enhance
supply agreements from two industrial sources, for an initial ICO2N
Energy EOR Project
throughput planned for 1.8Mtpa. ACTL is in the advanced
(Execute) • Three phases
stages of engineering and obtaining regulatory approvals.
scaling up to
ACTL is consistent with the first phase of a broader ICO2N potential 35Mtpa
network being proposed by a consortium of 16 large final • Up to 1,300km
emitters in Alberta.
ICO2N undertook a study for a comprehensive pipeline

network, with optimal routing over three phases connecting
up to 75 CO2 sources from a broad range power generation
and industrial facilities across Alberta. Focus on supplying
CO2 to 5 large areas for EOR.
12. Pennsylvania State of Pennsylvania published 2009 report on technical • 20-30Mtpa,
CCS Network, and economic viability on an integrated CCS network. scaling up to
United States potential
First phase involves retrofitting six coal-fired power plants
50-60Mtpa
for CO2 capture, with later phases integrating additional
capture at both power and industrial facilities.
Accompanied by separate report identifying four major

potential storage locations in Pennsylvania.
13. Ohio Network, Pew Centre 2008 report identified Ohio-based industries • 720km pipeline
United States that could be linked to a CO2 pipeline network for the
purposes of supplying CO2 for EOR.
Conceptual pipeline developed linking potential CO2 sources

to EOR opportunities.
14. Bell Creek Denbury will source CO2 from an existing natural gas • Capture from the • 1Mtpa to start
EOR, Wyoming, processing plant, and pipeline it 330km to Bell Creek EOR. Lost Cabin Gas Plant
United States (LCGP) Capture
Additional EOR opportunities in proximity to Bell Creek are
Project (Define)
also being explored.
193
Table C-7 LSIPs building on existing CO2 infrastructure for EOR43

ADDITION TO
NAME/REGION OVERVIEW/ASSET LIFECYCLE STAGE NETWORK
Identify Stage
1. CO2 Global – Project CO2 capture from oxycombustion power facility, feeding into an existing CO2 1.2Mtpa CO2
Viking, New Mexico, pipeline for transporting CO2 for EOR in the Permian Basin.
48km pipeline
United States
Evaluate Stage
2. Faustina Hydrogen, Capturing CO2 at a coal-to-liquids plant, and planning to supply CO2 into Denbury’s 1.5Mtpa CO2
Louisiana, United States 515km Green Pipeline recently constructed for transporting CO2 from Louisiana
515km pipeline
into Texas, which is connected to Denbury’s existing CO2 pipeline network in
Mississippi/Louisiana
3. Indiana Gasification, Pipeline options being explored to transport CO2 from coal-fired IGCC/SNG plant 1Mtpa CO2
Indiana, United States to existing CO2 pipelines in the region.
7.2km pipeline
4. Cash Creek, Kentucky, CO2 captured at a proposed IGCC facility, with plans to feed into Denbury’s 2Mtpa CO2
United States proposed 1,130km Midwest CO2 pipeline for connecting facilities in the Midwest
1,130km
to Denbury’s existing CO2 pipeline network in the Gulf region.
pipeline
5. Leucadia Mississippi, Will provide CO2 from a petcoke to synthetic natural gas (SNG) plant to Denbury’s 4Mtpa CO2
Mississippi, United States existing CO2 network.
176km pipeline
6. Taylorville Energy Centre CO2 capture from a proposed IGCC plant, connecting into Denbury’s proposed 1.9Mtpa CO2
IGCC, Illinois, United Midwest CO2 pipeline.
States
Define Stage
7. Tenaska Trailblazer CO2 captured from coal-fired power plant will feed into established CO2 pipeline 5.75Mtpa CO2
Energy Centre, Texas, in the vicinity.
United States
8. Lake Charles CO2 captured from proposed petcoke gasification plant will be transported a 4Mtpa CO2
Gasification Plant, short distance to Denbury’s Green Pipeline.
Louisiana, United States
9. Texas Clean Energy CO2 captured from proposed IGCC plant will be connected to Blue Source’s 2.7Mtpa CO2
Project (Nowgen), Texas, existing Val Verde CO2 pipeline for transporting CO2 to the Permian Basin.
133km pipeline
United States
10. Air Products Project, CO2 delivered from a oil refinery to Denbury for EOR at existing operations 1Mtpa CO2
Texas, United States in Texas.
11. Entergy Nelson 6 CCS CO2 from an existing coal-fired power station in Louisiana will be delivered to 4Mtpa CO2
Project, Louisiana, United Denbury Resources’ Green Pipeline, which passes 8km to the power station,
States for transport to EOR in existing oil fields located near the Gulf Coast.
43
A few LSIPs that will supply CO2 for EOR have not disclosed or confirmed an exact CO2 offtaker, making it difficult to determine whether they are either
building on existing CO2 infrastructure, part of plans to establish a new CO2 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 CO2 in proximity to existing or plans in the near future
to expand existing CO2 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 CO2 infrastructure for EOR43

ADDITION TO
NAME/REGION OVERVIEW/ASSET LIFECYCLE STAGE NETWORK
Execute Stage
12. Southern Company CO2 from IGCC project will be providing CO2 to existing EOR operations. 2.5Mtpa CO2
IGCC Project, Mississippi,
97.6km pipeline
United States
13. Occidental Gas CO2 from natural gas processing plant will be purchased for EOR at an existing 8.5Mtpa CO2
Processing Plant, Texas, operation in Texas. A new pipeline will connect to a CO2 industry hub in Denver
256km pipeline
United States City, Texas, sourcing CO2 from other gas processing plants.
Operate
14. Salt Creek Enhanced CO2 for EOR sourced from at least two different natural gas processing plants. 2.4Mtpa CO2
Oil Recovery, Wyoming,
322km pipeline
United States
15. Enid Fertilizer, CO2 from fertiliser plant feeding into a larger interconnected CO2 pipeline/EOR 0.675Mtpa CO2
Oklahoma, United States network operated by Anadarko.
192km pipeline
16. Rangely Project, CO2 sourced from LaBarge gas processing facility (one of the plants that provides 1Mtpa CO2
Colorado, United States CO2 to Salt Creek) and then transported by pipeline to Rangely field owned by
456km pipeline
Chevron Texaco.
17. Sharon Ridge EOR, CO2 sourced from at least four natural gas processing plants and transported by 1.3Mtpa CO2
Texas, United States a broader CO2 network for supporting EOR in the Permian Basin.
195
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES
ARI (Advanced Resources International) and Melzer Consulting 2010, ‘Optimisation of CO2 Storage in
Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects,’ report prepared for the United Kingdom Department of Energy
and Climate Change Office 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 CO2 in geological media
in response to climate change’, Environmental Geology, 44, 277-289.
Birat, JP 2009, ‘Steel and CO2 – 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 Profile: Middle East &
North Africa’, report commissioned by the Global CCS Institute, Canberra, Australia.
CO2 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 CO2 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,
Pacific 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, ‘CO2 driven Enhanced Oil Recovery as a Stepping Stone
to What?’, Report PNNL-19557, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Dütschke, E 2009, ‘Public participation practices and onshore CCS: Learning from Case Studies in Germany
– CO2 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 Classification System for Evaluating CO2 Storage Resource/Capacity Estimates’, paper presented
to SPE International Conference on CO2 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 CO2 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, CO2 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 CO2’, 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, ‘CO2 ¬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

Global Status Css Final

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Global Status Css Final

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The global Status

Units, Abbreviations, Glossary 5 7 CCS costs 114

UNITS, ABBREVIATIONS, GLOSSARY

MASS CDM Clean Development Mechanism

kt kilotonnes CHG China Huaneng Group

UNITS, ABBREVIATIONS, GLOSSARY (CONTINUED)

TERM DESCRIPTION TERM DESCRIPTION

Governments are acting on CCS

Signiﬁcant ﬁnancial support being provided

Both small and large-scale projects increased in number

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Activity is not uniform

Understanding of storage opportunities are improving

Timelines for site characterisation and location decisions pose challenges

Uncertainty around the costs of CCS demonstration projects remains

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Sharing information and public engagement are important

Through large-scale CCS demonstration

1.1 The challenge

Figure 1 Global CO2 emissions

Source: Earth System Research Laboratory

Figure 2 Stationary energy-related CO2 emissions from 2004-2007

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

1.2 The need

Figure 3 Global CO2 emissions and GHG emissions reductions

Baseline emissions 57Gt

CCS Power generation efﬁciency and fuel switching

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%

Cement 5.3% Gas power 8.4%

Source: IEA, CCS Roadmap (fold out) 2010

1.3 The response

UNFCCC and carbon pricing

Building the conditions for CCS demonstration

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

CO2 network and storage

International multilateral forum perspective

1.4 This report

2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND PUBLIC

Large-scale projects are receiving

US$25 billion 80 per cent 77 per cent

2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT (CONTINUED)

Figure 5 Technology cycle

INVENTION INNOVATION ADOPTION DIFFUSION

Source: Rubin (2005)

2.1 Scope of the chapter

2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT (CONTINUED)

2.2 Mechanisms for public ﬁnancial support

Table 1 Public ﬁnancial support mechanisms for CCS projects

2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT (CONTINUED)

Table 1 Public ﬁnancial support mechanisms for CCS projects

2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT (CONTINUED)

2.3 Status of direct public ﬁnancial support to CCS projects

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

Figure 6 Government CCS funding initiatives from 2005 to 20106

US$bn 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT (CONTINUED)