The End of the Road

Introduction

 So here I am, the end of my blogging journey. It is time for me to stop contributing to this blog. I wanted to investigate if carbon capture and storage (CCS) was the key to securing our climate future. So, is it? Well, I started this blog ambivalent on the matter, but with an inertial belief that an economy built on clean fossil fuels was somehow just better than renewables. Now? I'm not so sure.

 I feel my biggest error in writing this blog has been my inability to define CCS. The more I have learnt the more I have realised CCS doesn't define a singular - it is an all encompassing term for a range of carbon capture methodologies; each has different environmental and economic impacts. It is not, as I had assumed, simply the process of capturing CO2 from a power station and storing it underground. CO2 can be sequestered in concrete, used to enhance oil production, or in the case of biomass energy - produce negative emissions.

 My thoughts now? The CCS I naively perceived - the capture and storage of CO2 from power stations - is not the key to securing our climate future. But do elements of CCS technology have a role to play? Maybe. Here is why.

Big Oil

 My early blogs showed that CCS, from a scientific standpoint at least, makes sense. It is safe, as exemplified by the many schemes across the globe that capture, transport and store CO2. I highlighted risks associated with aquifer contamination, but felt that with proper site choice and management that these risks could be easily neutralised.

 It was when I began to look at case studies in depth, particularly the Boundary Dam facility, that my mindset changed. At Boundary Dam taxpayers effectively subsided the ballooning profits of Cenovous energy, made possible by enhanced oil recovery utilising captured CO2.

 Clearly, CCS has been hijacked by the interests of big oil. As I said in my 'Rex on CCS' post, not only does CCS portray big oil in a pseudo-environmental light, it is a major component of their long term business plans. It is their life support machine to the 22nd century.

 And that, for me, is the problem with CCS. It is the malignant, pitiful cry of a dying dinosaur as its withered hand desperately tries to claw its way into the future.  It is the mechanism by which we commit ourselves to another 100 years of environmental catastrophe. It is the crushing of indigenous rights in Alberta, negligent, livelihood destroying oil spills in the Niger delta and political lobbying on a scale that makes the pharmaceutical industry look like a poorly organised stag party.

What is our climate future?

 Our climate future is not as simple as reducing CO2 emissions. Our climate future incorporates job growth, rights for indigenous people, protection for endangered species and a democratic debate about our planet's future. CCS provides none of these. It is the recycling of 19th century technology. It is power kept in the hands of greedy fossil fuel corporations.

 The greatest achievements in human history have not come from the recycling of dated technologies. They have arrived from paradigm shifts in the way that we operate and perceive problems. Concorde did not come from the continuous evolution of the bicycle. An inertial obsession with the very fossil fuel industry whose deplorable negligence of climate change has got us here is not the key to securing our climate future.

 CCS is the smoker who cuts down their cigarette intake. It is the token effort to change your ways whilst innately acknowledging that you don't give a damn.

 The real solution is staring us all in the face.

The Renewable Future

 Renewable energies are largely cheaper than CCS technologies (particularly coal w/CCS, which onshore wind, biomass, hydroelectric and solar photovoltaics are all cheaper than), and the price of renewable energy will likely fall with increasing economies of scale. And what is more - renewables are associated with none of the torrid environmental impacts linked to fossil fuel extraction, or aggresive political lobbying, or the continued extraction of oil via enhanced oil recovery, or the crushing of indigenous land rights across the world, or the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the Middle East during (at least partly) resource fuelled wars. You get the picture...

 A paradigm shift to renewable energies could change everything. It represents an opportunity to localise our energy production away from centralised powerful corporations - who worry so little about social and environmental matters.

Revolution not evolution.

Bring on the renewables.

So should CCS technologies have any future?

 Yes. (Maybe - Bare with me). Thus far this post has solely addressed electricity production. Whilst renewable energy is the answer there, what about other energy intensive sectors? Clearly, it is not possible for all fossil fuel burning industries to convert to renewables overnight. The cement industry is one such case. So where does CCS come in?

 Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the short term answer. Minimal retrofitting of existing plants would be required to burn biomass - and biomass is cheaper than coal w/CCS. Negative emissions would be extremely helpful for global CO2 emissions - cement production is one of the most energy intensive industries in the world.

Conclusion

 No, CCS is not the key to securing our climate future. Cheaper, less environmentally destructive renewables are our future. Renewables diverge from the corporate dominance of the fossil fuel companies that have assaulted our planet so aggressively. In industry, BECCS may have a roll to play in the short term - and likely in the long term when policymakers inevitably fail to take action on climate.

 In my view, now is the time for change. Inertia is dangerous. Our obsession with fossil fuels, and by extension CCS, is a malicious distraction that inhibits an immediate shift to renewable energies. Only by kicking our fossil fuel addiction can we secure our climate future. It must start now.

Rex on CCS

Introduction

 This weeks guest blogger is Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump's selection for secretary of state and CEO of ExxonMobil, the worlds biggest oil company.

Rex on CCS

 I have, unlike my predecessors at ExxonMobil, gone on record time and again and openly said that I believe in anthropogenic climate change. However, to quote Hillary, I of course have both a public and private position...

 I am a realist and recognise that ExxonMobil will not see the middle of the century unless it evolves. I have advocated a carbon tax (a tax on emitted CO2; see this ExxonMobil blog) and under my leadership ExxonMobil is positioning itself as a world leader in carbon capture and storage.

See the youtube video below to see me discussing my views on climate change.

See the youtube video below to see me discussing my views on carbon taxes.

 As you can see in the video above, I believe in the implementation of a carbon tax - for it does not inhibit economic growth and can be implemented across borders. Off the back of the introduction of a carbon tax, CCS would likely grow exponentially. Here is why I support a carbon tax and CCS:

• A double pronged carbon tax/CCS approach extends our corporation's operating lifetime. Without a tax on carbon, CCS isn't economically viable; without CCS, our corporation will eventually be left behind.
• Cai et al., (2014) modelled the effect of carbon taxation upon CCS deployment. The study found that CCS was not economically viable alongside a carbon tax - unless the captured CO2 was used to implement enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
• How wonderful for us! Not only do we reap the image benefits as being seen as a green, environmentally conscious corporation, we also extend the lifetime of our precious resource! 
• This review paper by Muggeride et al., (2013) outlines the growing need for widespread deployment of EOR methods. It explains why, without EOR, mean global oil yields are 20-40%. Where EOR methods are employed, this can rise as high as 85%!

Conclusion

 As CEO of ExxonMobil I believe in the implementation of a carbon tax that would drive CCS development. As I see it, CCS is vital to our corporation for two key reasons. 

 Firstly, it portrays an environmentally conscious corporate image - something that we have tried, and failed, to build. Secondly, it extends the operational lifetime of our corporation. Without CCS we are the dodo, we are the mammoth. In the absence of evolution, extinction will befall us. The fossil fuel industry has to change - CCS is that change. And what is more, a useful byproduct compliments CCS  - a cheap source of CO2 to use for EOR. 

 Oh those sweet juicy profits!

Leo on CCS

Introduction

This weeks guest stakeholder contribution comes from Leonardo Di Caprio!

Leo on CCS

 I am Hollywood's face of environmentalism. I have experienced a successful acting career, and in some ways, feel that I have been bestowed with the power to induce change. I have championed the battle against climate change, producing and starring in documentaries such as Before the Flood and Biomimicry.

 Climate change represents an existential threat to humanity. Peters et al., (2013) suggests RCP2.6 (see this skeptical science blog for description), the only IPCC scenario that limits temperature rise to below 2 degrees, would require near immediate emission reductions and negative emissions beyond 2070.

 So where does CCS come in? Reiner (2016) suggests that the 2 degree limit can only be attained through carbon capture technologies and that the technology must NOW make the transition from pilot to industrial scale, or 2 degrees of warming will be locked in.

 However, having read posts in this blog over previous weeks, I agree with Lewis Holden in that many CCS pilot projects have been hijacked by big oil. So how can CCS work for the environmentalist?

Blue Planet

 I recently joined the board of Blue Planet, a CCS development company based in Los Angeles. This company has recognised that, economically, CCS is only viable if a monetary incentive is presented. For example, Saskpower sold their captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).

 Worrell et al., (2001) calculates that the global cement industry accounts for 5% of all CO2 emissions and Gregg et al., (2008) notes the rapid growth of this industry in China, which now accounts for 50% of all global CO2 emissions from cement production. At Blue Planet we are developing (and have patented) technology that captures CO2 from industrial power plants and utilises it in cement production. The process is outlined in my documentary, Biomimicry (starts a 7:50).

 How wonderful! A double CO2 sequestration. Captured in the chimney and stored in the cement! Professor Peter Claisse wrote this article discussing the method and the unresolved issues associated with it. These are summarised below:

• CO2 captured from power stations reacts with concrete and is sequestered. However, the process is very slow and very large surface areas of concrete to are required for the process to be economical.
• 260 million tonnes of CO2 could be sequestered in cement each year (though such figures are associated with huge uncertainties).
• The enhanced carbonation increases the risk of steel corrosion within concrete. Hence, there are many engineering applications where such concrete would be unsafe, such as in bridges or buildings.
• An engineering application where the technique would be useful is a floor of a warehouse. Here the risk of steel corrosion is very low, hence carbonated concrete could be used.

Conclusion

 For too long we have sat and and argued about how to fight the enemy. It is already rolling over the horizon. We find ourselves with the lesser hand. We must, of course, move towards 100% renewable energies as soon as possible. Can we do this tomorrow? No. CCS must play a role in reducing carbon emissions in the meantime. Evidently, CCS must first be monetised, and in the most environmentally friendly way possible. The technology is largely unproven, but I think CCS and concrete production may be the answer.

Maggie on CCS

Introduction 

 Over the next few weeks I will move away from my view of CCS and take a wider look at how stakeholders such as policymakers, environmentalists and energy companies perceive the role of CCS.

 This week I invoke the spirit of the late (Great? Evil? - I suppose that splits opinion) Margaret Thatcher....

Maggie on CCS

 Contrary to what your perceptions of me may be, I was one of the first politicians to bring the threat of climate change into the public eye. Here is my 1988 speech to The Royal Society, in which I discussed the threat of rising CO2 emissions.

 Since I was ousted from power the threat level from climate change has increased exponentially. So what is the solution? This blog is all about securing our climate future - i.e. working towards a world in which the impacts of climate change are nullified. As a policymaker, I believe a solution to climate change must comply with two key principles:

• Meeting the aim of the Paris Agreement in that it limits dangerous global warming to <2 degrees.
• Allow continued economic prosperity in the western world, achieve sustainable development in the developing world and, most importantly, not become a vehicle by which government can regulate the competitiveness of the private sector.

Complying with the Paris Agreement

 Azar et al., (2010) used three global energy system models to investigate the likelihood of a 2 degree warming cap. The study found negative emissions would significantly increase the likelihood of attaining such a target. The authors discuss that, at present, BECCS (biomass energy with carbon capture and storage) is the only method by which negative emissions can be attained. For me, this is why CCS holds the cards compared to renewable energies in securing our climate future.

Economic Prosperity

 I am more sceptical of CCS from an economic perspective. I am a free-marketeer, famed with developing the neoliberal economic ideology in Britain. I detest any and all government intervention in the private sector. For me, as well as many other right-wing politicians, this is what makes us fear mitigating climate change. 

 Scott et al., (2013) suggest CCS is failing to get off the ground globally due to the high capital investment required. Around the world private companies are not investing in CCS, and why should they, it is completely uneconomical according to Scott et al., (2013). The study goes on to suggest that market regulation is required to get CCS off the ground - this I utterly deplore.

 Scruggs (2012) discusses how concern over climate change has significantly declined since 2008 in the USA, citing concerns over living standards and economic growth that trump (get it...) concerns over climate change. 

 Bushnell et al., (2013) studied the effect of increasing cap-and-trade regulation in the EU during 2006 upon 552 stocks from the EUROSTOX index. Scott et al., (2013) suggest that cap-and-trade regulation must be further rolled out in order to make CCS profitable. Bushnell et al., (2013) found that companies operating in energy and electricity intensive industries suffered with heavy losses in the value of their stocks. So the bureaucratic, non-democratic EU profits whilst the pension pots of ordinary people decline - that doesn't seem like a fair deal to me!

Conclusion

 Environmentally, CCS makes sense. But, to me, it is simply a vehicle by which the socialist ideology of regulation, taxation and subsidy can be implemented. Studies show people place economic growth over climate concerns. Climate change must be fought,  but not at the detriment of economic stability. An economy that promotes CCS would represent everything I fought against. Securing our climate future lies elsewhere.

A short note on Trump and CCS

 I'm probably a little late on the implications-of-trump-for-my-niche-field-post bandwagon, but we'll plough on regardless.

 The Donald has explicitly stated his support for clean coal - presumably via CCS, how else would the dirtiest fossil fuel become clean? His reasoning lies in the promise of jobs and economic growth in the coal mining industry in America's deindustrialised coal belt.

 My advice: follow the German model. There, generous renewables subsidies have contributed to a green jobs boom. Cheaper energy (see figure 4 from my last post), zero emissions and fewer environmental impacts associated with coal mining. Its a simple choice Don.

CCS: Present Research & Future Perspectives

Introduction

 In previous posts I explored the geological and economic viability of CCS and presented an in depth  CCS case study. Here I take a look at recent published literature in the field and where the future of CCS lies.

 I started this blog with a meagre view of CCS. Geologically, I found CCS made sense. But studying the Boundary Dam project and the economics of CCS, I'm now questioning whether CCS is the key to securing our climate future. Could this post lay out an alternative CCS pathway that changes my mind?

Perspectives from Britain

  Evidently, the British government had the same epiphany as me. In 2015 £1 billion earmarked for CCS projects in the UK was withdrawn by the government.

  Off the back of this decision planned CCS projects, such as Shell's Peterhead CCS project and the White Rose CCS project, have been cancelled.

 Some might say Shell should be forced to fund CCS projects themselves in order to limit their environmental impact, rather than relying on subsidies. Indeed, in 2011 (under sky high oil prices) Maersk planned to do just that; with plans to build integrated oil extraction > gas burning > electricity producing > carbon capturing > carbon sequestering > enhanced oil recovery facilities.

 With collapsing oil prices such projects will, unfortunately, not come to fruition. However, this editorial by Curtis Oldenburg projects a rosy outlook for CCS under low oil prices. Oldenburg suggests CO2 storage can be turned into an incentive for oil companies by allowing them to use the stored CO2 for EOR when oil prices recover.

 Other studies, such as this paper by Muriel Cozier, suggest that the future of CCS in the UK is bleak. I have to say, I think I agree.

BECCS - The saviour for CCS?

 If we are serious about limiting temperature rise to <2 degrees under the terms of the Paris Agreement, then there must be a paradigm shift in how we produce energy. The 2015 IPCC AR5 introduced the concept of cumulative carbon emissions:

Figure 1: From the summary for policymakers of IPCC WG1 AR5. Dependent on the relative concentration pathway (RCP) taken (a particular emissions scenario; see this blog for detailed explanation), limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees means limiting cumulative GtC output to <700-1000 GtC.

 Under 3 of the IPCC's 4 RCP's this threshold is passed before 2050. Beyond 2050, negative emissions of CO2 are required to limit warming to <2 degrees. With little viability in the direct atmospheric removal of carbon dioxide (see the Royal Societies 2009 geoengineering report) the only viable method for atmospheric CO2 removal is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

 Biomass (e.g crops & trees) absorb CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. By using this biomass to produce biofuels (e.g wood & liquid fuels) and employing CCS to capture the emitted CO2, net CO2 emissions from energy production are negative. This 2016 review paper by V Mohan and this report from the Grantham Institute explain the process in depth.

Figure 2: From the Centre for Carbon Removal. The process of BECCS, graphically explained.

 Truong et al., 2016 modelled the global impact of BECCS on climate change. The study found that replacing coal fired power stations with BECCS facilities resulted in negative CO2 emissions and contributed significantly to reductions in global temperature rise by 2100. 

 Moreira et al., 2016 modelled the regional impact of BECCS deployment in Brazil. The study found BECCS had the potential to reduce Brazil's CO2 emissions by 5% and that economic benefits would be concentrated in rural agricultural communities - commonly those which suffer most from climate change. However, the study found that such an implementation would increase electricity costs by $3/MwH for consumers, and that a carbon tax would be needed to offset such a rise.

 The economic outlook of BECCS modelled by Muratori et al., 2016 is significantly rosier. This model found a world with widespread BECCS deployment limited increases in global food prices, by reducing the price of carbon, to which the price of food is known to be linked. 

Does the future of CCS lie in the developing world?

 China and India combined emit almost a third of global CO2. With growing populations and an increasing thirst for a western consumer lifestyle, could CCS make gains in the countries which will contribute the most CO2 over the coming decades?

Figure 3: From the US Department of Energy. Global CO2 emissions by country.

 Viebahn et al., 2014 assessed the viability of CCS in India. The study found that ~75Gt of CO2 could be captured by 2050 from coal fired power stations. However, the study cited a lack of investment in CCS in the developed world as hindering CCS efforts in India. The generally high costs of CCS in a country still plagued with poverty is also cited as a significant barrier to CCS roll out. This paper by Singh & Singh (2016) outlines CCS development in India.

 In China, less public backlash (and a more authoritative government) in response to large industrial projects improves the likelihood of CCS success. The Shenhua Ordos CCS facility, which operated between 2011 and 2014, captured 300,000 tonnes of CO2. Zhang et al., 2016 describes the success of the project and the outstanding safety record of the facility over its 3 year lifetime.

Conclusions

 In Britain, withdrawal of government funding and a lack of willingness from oil companies to invest in CCS has all but ended CCS development.

  If like me, you're sceptical the Paris Agreement can limit temperature rise to 2 degrees, then you might think that BECCS will be needed to contribute towards negative emissions. However, the ecological and environmental impacts of deforestation would likely be major barriers.

 In China and India, CCS could be vital in limiting future CO2 emissions. Like I have said in this blog previously however: why bother when renewables are just cheaper...

Figure 4: Zero emissions nuclear, geothermal and wind are all cheaper than CCS - why bother?

Boundary Dam CCS 2016 / An economic perspective on CCS

 Last week, I stated that the Boundary Dam CCS project captured 400,000 tonnes of CO2 in the year to September 2015, less than half its target of 1 million tonnes of CO2.

 In the last few weeks Saskpower released their figures for 2016. These figures shows a stark increase in the CO2 captured to 800,000 tonnes, a vast improvement.

 Personally, I still think the finances surrounding the project are unethical and morally questionable. The project does however highlight the viability of CO2 capture technologies.

Economics & CCS

 This paper by Koehlbl, B., et al. is due to be published on December 1st. The study models the impacts of a CCS dominated economy versus a status quo economy in the Netherlands. GDP and import dependency are effectively the same in the two scenarios, but unemployment is found to be slightly higher in a CCS economy.

 Looking at studies such as this and examples like the Boundary Dam CCS project, the economics of CCS really don't strike me as being viable. Figure 2 in my last blog epitomises this - why bother with CCS when you can go renewable?

Boundary Dam CCS Project: A critical review

 Last week I introduced the Boundary Dam CCS project. This post will explore some of the issues the pilot project has faced.

Cost - taxpayers subsidising private oil interests?

 Everything discussed in this section is taken from this financial report and analysis of Boundary Dam CCS, from Saskwind. The figure below summarises the findings of the report.

Figure 1: Financial analysis of the Boundary Dam CCS project.

 The report, summarised here in this excellent article by David Roberts, finds:

• The $1.2 billion project budget eventually overran to $1.47 billion.
• $240 million of this was payed for by the Canadian federal government, the other $1.23 billion by Saskpower's electricity customers (via their bills).
• Over the plant's 30 year lifetime:
• The plant will earn $713 million from the sale of CO2 and $391 million from electricity sold.
• If the construction and upkeep costs of the CCS facility are subtracted from this profit, the CCS facility will make a $1,042 million loss overall.
• The total loss for Saskpower's customers equals -$651 million.

 In the meantime, Cenovous Energy, the oil company using the captured CO2 to extract oil from the Weyburn oil field, will net a $1,823 million profit from oil sales. Of this, an estimated $1,000 million will be oil sales made possible by EOR using CO2 from Boundary Dam.

 The upshot? Saskatchewan tax payers subsidise Cenovous Energy's $1 billion profits to the tune of $650 million. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a flagship environmental project to me.

 The alternative? According to this figure from the US Energy Information Administration's 2016 outlook, the cost of Hydro, Wind, Solar PV and Biomass renewable energy sources are all significantly lower than the cost of new CCS coal fired power stations.

Figure 2: Cost of different electricity sources.

 Saskwind's report states that wind power (Saskatchewan is Canada's windiest province) could provide an equivalent amount of electricity over 30 years for just $450 million. That's a whole $1 billion less than the Boundary Dam CCS project.

Environmental Concerns

Probably the most fundamental component of a CCS facility is that it does what it says on the tin: captures carbon. Upon construction, Saskpower hailed that the Boundary Dam CCS project would capture 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, in this September 2015 press release Saskpower stated that Boundary Dam had captured just 400,000 tonnes of CO2 in its first year of operation, less than half their target.

 Stephan Melzer noted in his 2012 report on CO2 EOR that NUMBYISM (not under my backyard) was one of the major barriers to CCS development. He cited concerns about industrial subsurface storage, general mistrust of large industry and pollution. So how does Boundary Dam CCS compare to a 'normal' power station?

 In this 2016 paper by Koiwanit, J., et al the effect of CCS upon atmospheric NOx and SO2 pollutants was studied. Reductions in NOx and SO2 emissions were observed at CCS sites. It was found that reductions in SO2 and NOx pollutants contribute to reductions in acute respiratory problems such as asthma. However, the post-combustion CO2 capture technique used at Boundary Dam was found to be much less effective at reducing atmospheric contaminants than oxy-fuel capture technologies.

Conclusions

 Teething problems can be expected, but the suspect financial setup and poor CO2 capture record of Boundary Dam borders on the ridiculous. In terms of atmospheric pollutant reduction, Boundary Dam has been successful, but it is a small battle won in a very large war. To the residents of Saskatchewan, the Boundary Dam CCS project appears something of a white elephant. To Cenovous Energy? A piggy bank.

Boundary Dam Carbon Capture Project: A working CCS case study

Background

 Having divulged my thoughts on the geological viability of CCS and how to market CCS to the public over the last few weeks, I thought that this week I would present to you an in depth case study of CCS in action.

The Carbon Brief, though a little dated, provides a good overview of current CCS projects around the globe.

Figure 1: CCS projects around the globe. Just 3 of the 22 projects (in 2014) under construction or operational were working power stations.

Boundary Dam CCS Project

 The first example I encountered was the Boundary Dam CCS project in Canada, marketed by its owner, Saskpower, as "The world's first post combustion CO2 capture coal fired power station".

 The project, described in depth here constitutes:

• The regeneration of an ageing coal fired power unit into a more efficient, reliable generator of 115 megawatts of electricity per year.
• The capture of up to 90% of CO2 produced by the unit, reducing CO2 emissions by up to one million tonnes per year (the equivalent of 250,000 cars).
• Capture of other byproducts, such as SO2 and NOx, which are then sold to industry.

For further information, see this Department for energy and climate change blog here, and this rather self-indulgent and technical scientific paper by Karl Stephenne here. This (dry and corporate) youtube video from Saskpower also outlines the scheme well:

So far so good - coal is a cheap source of reliable electricity. With a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions, coal becomes a reliable, cheap and environmentally friendly source of electricity. However, there are caveats.

Destination of captured CO2

 The clue is in the name, carbon capture AND storage; Boundary Dam CCS project does the capturing well, but the storage? Not so much.

 "Most" of the captured CO2 is "transported by pipeline to nearby oilfields where it will be used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)". 

So this project isn't CCS at all! It is merely a source of CO2 to fuel an oil extraction method that has existed for generations. 

Figure 2: Oil recovery at the nearby Weyburn oil field increased by ~250% when EOR methods were employed in the mid 2000's.

 Little data (probably purposefully) is available based on net CO2 emissions from CCS taking into account CO2 produced by extra crude production. So I thought i'd try for myself*:

• According to the US Energy Information Administration, ~170kg of CO2 is created from a barrel of oil (if converted into petrol and combusted).
• An extra ~15,000 barrels of oil a day was produced each day due to EOR at Weyburn oil field (at injection rates of 1,800,00 tonnes of CO2 per year).
• This equates to 475,000 extra barrels of oil produced a year based on 365 days a year production. 
• Post-combustion, this equates to 930,750,000kg of CO2 per year, or 930,750 tonnes, based on the US EIA's figure.
• The Boundary Dam project captures ~1,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. Assuming 'most' means ~90% then 900,000 tonnes of this is used for EOR. 
• ~1,800,000 tonnes of CO2 a year was injected at the Weyburn oil field. Boundary dam will contribute approximately half this amount (~900,000 tonnes) to EOR a year. 
• Based on this assumption, approximately 465,375 (930,750 / 2) tonnes of CO2 will be created per year from the combustion of oil produced from CO2 captured at Boundary Dam. 

 In short, this means that the Boundary Dam CCS project produces 115 Megawatts of electricity per year, with minimal (<10% of the norm) CO2 emissions. However, the project then effectively releases ~465,000 tonnes of CO2 per year from oil combustion.

Conclusions

 There are many assumptions in this rudimentary back of the envelope calculation, but what is clear is that there are distinct environmental benefits to CCS-EOR. Negative, or net zero emissions, are not attainable via this method. For this, highly efficient storage within geological formations would be required.

 But, we live in a world addicted to electricity, addicted to oil. There exists a whole different debate encompassing whether or not we should continue to use fossil fuels in the face of climate change. But, in a world unlikely to go teetotal anytime soon, projects such as this can help to drastically reduce, though not eradicate, CO2 emissions.

 Now, this line of argument ignores the nitty-gritty world of economics, of safety and of politics. My next post will explore these issues in relation to the Boundary Dam CCS project.

Until then...

*calculations based upon Weyburn oil field, an oilfield in the Boundary Dam region which underwent EOR in the mid 2000's. At the the time Weyburn was the largest CCS project in the world. Injection of CO2 into the Weyburn field was 1,800,000 tonnes per year.

Marketing CCS: What is an attractive proposition?

Context

 I have just finished watching "Before the Flood". If you haven't, its essentially 90 minutes of Leonardo Di Caprio indulging in smug environmentalism. Nonetheless, it also contains some accurate, thought-provoking climate science and, regrettably, some scaremongering too. The documentary is available on Youtube, see below.

 After watching, I read the comments from Youtube users who watched the documentary. Many of the comments struck a familiar theme. Despite having spent 90 minutes of their lives watching a documentary about climate change, many didn't want their lifestyles to be influenced in combatting climate change.

Veganism? Eurgh, all those leaves.

Electric cars? But i'm charging my iPad, where do I plug it in?

No beef? What, not even Mcdonalds?

Renewable energy? Oh, but all those ugly windmills! Its all a hoax anyway, DONALD KNOWS!

Marketing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

 Watching and reading I began to think about the role of CCS in combatting climate change. What would be the opinion of the commenters? If CCS was to become a major component of our energy system, how would it go about succeeding where other initiatives have failed - in getting the public on side?

 I came up with a four point plan. If, tomorrow, I was put in front of a politician and told to convince them to implement CCS, this is what i'd say:

• Emphasise that no change in lifestyle is needed on the part of the consumer. CCS essentially allows guilt free use of popular energy intensive products. This is touched upon in this paper (in press) by Kruger, T. Kruger discusses how CCS has become more attractive in the face of the Paris Agreement because of how it supports the continued dominance of a centralised fossil fuel industry.
• Encourage investment and support from big business on the basis of the potential economic benefit from CCS. One such example would be petroleum companies, who would benefit from a policy which doesn't inhibit their profits. Again this is discussed in the Kruger paper. Kruger highlights that the behaviour of consumers can often mirror the opinion of large corporations because of advertising and marketing campaigns.
• Highlight the weaknesses of the rivals. For example, CCS allows continued energy production from reliable sources such as gas and coal. Alternatives, such as renewables, can be unreliable in their supply. However, the success of countries such as Uruguay in implementing renewables may make this pitch difficult.
• Don't alienate people. I can't emphasis the importance of this enough. Don't push people to supporting CCS. In some circles of society, such as the middle-class intelligentsia, refuting environmentalist ideas is viewed as sacrilege. Outside of these circles, resentment can build when such accusations are made, promoting the alternate viewpoint. One such dividing example is the Prius - Toyota's hybrid car. To a person struggling to make ends meet, it represents a clique of well-educated, sandal wearing, vegan environmentalists out of touch with the plight of the average person. See this blog from an angry American. CCS must not be tarnished with this brush.

Conclusions

 Without the support of the Youtube commenters, any future development in CCS is doomed to failure. Only with a broad spectrum of public opinion can such a large undertaking ever work. Only through a targeted marketing campaign is this possible. Perhaps most importantly, it mustn't alienate the very people it hopes to recruit.

Moving on

 In my earlier posts I have explored the geological aspect of CCS. My remaining posts will explore the viability of the above statements - as well as other questions such as: What does CCS mean for energy bills? Is it economically viable? Where is public opinion?

Keep your eyes out!

Balancing the argument: A further short note on the geological viability of CCS

Background

 Further to my musings a little under a week ago, I have been further investigating the geological viability of CCS. I ended my last post with a rosy outlook, suggesting that CCS really made sense from a geological viewpoint.

Further research

 After some further reading I came across a study which refutes this viewpoint. Lawter et al. (2015) conducted an experiment into the effects of sequestering CO2 when a CO2 reservoir is overlain by an unconsolidated aquifer (poorly consolidated sedimentary rocks containing groundwater).

 The study, conducted in the laboratory, found that some soluble elements, such as sodium, arsenic, magnesium, molybdenum and strontium, would leak into the aquifer if CO2 was injected.

Figure 1: From Lawter et al. 2015. Injection of CO2 into an aquifer causes a reduction in pH. This subsequently increases the mobility of many elements (see below).

Figure 2: From Lawter et al. 2015. Increases in concentrations of toxic lead and arsenic, surpassing the safe levels defined by the EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). These increases in concentration correlate with CO2 injection.

Implications

These results are significant because elements such as arsenic and molybdenum are toxic. Should these elements enter the groundwater supply they would have the potential to threaten human life.

My opinion

 The paper is important in highlighting how element mobility can change after CO2 injection. However, I personally believe that with adequate prior research and knowledge, potentially dangerous CO2 sequestration sites can be avoided. This is a relatively simple and cheap process, this study by Bachu (2002) sets out the options for different CO2 sequestration sites.

 I also approach the findings within the paper with some scepticism. This is because of the purely chemical nature of the experimentation. The paper doesn't take into account geological factors, such as explaining the pathway along which such contaminants would travel into the aquifer. As mentioned in my previous post, CCS generally takes place in the presence of an impermeable barrier between the sequestered CO2 and overlying sediments. The studies (e.g Chadwick et. al 2005) discussed in my previous post found that CO2 didn't leak into overlying aquifers when sequestered.

 This research is undoubtedly a barrier to CCS development, rightly so, given the potential human impact. However, I believe that it is preventable with proper site choice and management. Because of this, I still believe that CCS makes geological sense.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) - a geological perspective

Background

The process of Carbon Capture and Storage is divided into 3 phases:

• CO2 capture
• Transport to a suitable location
• CO2 storage in subsurface

 As something of a geology fiend, I am particularly interested in how CO2 is stored within rocks. It is this topic that I will address within this post.

Geological requirements

 CO2 can be stored in rocks with the following charecteristics (Bachu 2008):

• A high porosity (large spaces between sedimentary grains) to be able to uptake CO2
• A high permeability (ability for CO2 to travel between pore spaces, so that CO2 can be pumped into the ground at a rate which makes it worthwhile)
• A formation overlain by a cap rock (An impermeable rock which prevents the upward migration of CO2, which has a natural tendency to do so because of its low density)

 The 3 characteristics outlined in the paper are somewhat simplified, particularly because of the effect of geological structures. For example, if the sequestration site was cross-cut by faults (structural planes of weakness), these could act as permeability pathways which would allow CO2 to migrate towards the surface and escape.

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR)

 When I began to research this topic, the same point was mentioned in almost every paper abstract that I read (e.g Steeneveld et al. 2010). That point was that the storage of CO2 within geological formations is already widespread. This is because CO2 has been used as an enhanced oil recovery method for decades, particularly in the US.

 This review paper by Alvarado & Manrique provides an overview of the use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Put simply, CO2 is pumped into oil reservoirs when recovery yields begin to decline. The less dense CO2 displaces the oil present in pore spaces of rocks, forcing it up a well to the surface. In many cases this can increase reservoir yield by 10-15%. The following youtube video from Richland Community College represents the process using a jar of rocks, effervescing tablets, vegetable oil and water.

 It is somewhat misleading to suggest that the act of geologically sequestering CO2 is commonplace, as the ultimate destination of sequestered CO2 isn't the priority of oil companies employing the method; they are driven entirely by oil yield. 

 This statement also ignores the irony of the process, in that CO2 is used as a mechanism to produce more CO2-producing fuels. Because of this, the ability of CO2 to escape geological formations and the geological viability of the process has, until relatively recently, been poorly understood.

What can we learn from EOR?

 Though little information of the sub-surface behaviour of CO2 can be gleaned from EOR, there are valuable lessons to be learnt for CCS. Namely, EOR proves the viability of large infrastructure projects that exist solely to collect CO2 from industrial processes, transport it and deposit it in geological formations (Bachu 2008). 

 Indeed, as a non-flammable and non-toxic gas (until very high concentrations) it is much safer than other commonly exploited gases such as Hydrogen and Ammonia. Bachu (2008) notes that the greatest threat posed by release of CO2 from sequestration infrastructure is actually global warming.

Seismic imaging of CO2

 So, if the oil industry isn't undertaking comprehensive research to understand what happens to CO2 when it is injected into the subsurface, how can we begin to understand how it behaves?

 Ironically, the technique commonly used to image sequestered CO2, seismic imaging, is a product of the evolution of oil exploration. Seismic imaging essentially involves the production of sound waves on the land/sea surface, which propagate down into subsurface rock layers. 

 Depending upon the compressibility of each rock layer (how easy it is to squash) the characteristics of the reflected seismic waves will vary. Using this information, scientists can reconstruct the subsurface geology. The process is explained in this youtube video below from the Queensland Resources Council.

 This technique was created for oil exploration purposes to hunt for oil and gas within the subsurface. As global demand for oil has increased, the technique has evolved and improved. 3D seismic surveys are now commonplace in the oil industry. 

 For the purposes of tracking sequestered CO2, 4D seismic is used. This is essentially 3D data taken at different time intervals. This review paper by Lumley 2010 explains the principles of 4D seismic interpretation for imaging CO2 in the sub-surface. This is a good high level explanation of the process, however the simple statement that the CO2's low compressibility relative to dry rock allows it to be imaged within the subsurface isn't eluded to in the paper.

4D seismic imaging of sequestered CO2 - a case study 

 This paper from Chadwick et al. (2005) explains how CO2 in the North Sea was injected into a saline aquifer (porous body of rock with a high concentration of saline water in its pore spaces) between 1991 and 2001.

 Using 4D seismic imaging the authors were able to view the evolution of the injected CO2 plume over 10 years. They observed that the CO2 remained confined to the targeted rock layers, and that no loss of CO2 occurred. The evolving CO2 plume is shown in the diagram below.

 This study and others (see Alnes et al. 2008) suggest that the risk of CO2 escape from storage is low. Other 4D seismic studies (Verdon et al. 2010) have found that there has been little or no influence upon earthquake activity from CO2 injection.

Conclusion

 Existing EOR projects highlight the safety & viability of infrastructure dedicated to CO2 capture, transport and storage. Seismic imaging has found that the threat of CO2 escape from geological formations is negligible. Other threats, such as earthquakes induced by increased stresses within rocks due to CO2 input, have also been debunked. From a purely geological standpoint, CCS really does make sense.

Further reading

 If this post hasn't satisfied your thirst for CCS knowledge, this lecture from Biondo Biondi further explains the use of 4D seismic imagery to image CO2.