Linde Briefing for USEA Update on DOE Post-Combustion Capture project & CCUS activities
January 2013
Linde Overview & Focus on CCUS Pathways PCC Technology & Update on DOE Project Current CCUS Activities & Focus Areas
04/02/2013
2
The Linde Group Overview
Founded Sales Employees Countries
~$20 billion ~62,000 >100
Linde Engineering
Linde Gas - Tonnage
Technology-focused
World-class operations
Air Separation
Global #1 Olefins
Global #2
04/02/2013
1879
HyCO Tonnage Plants
Hydrogen/Syn Gas
Leveraging Synergies
Global #2 Natural Gas
Global #3
3
>70 plants CO2 Plants
>100 plants
ASU Tonnage Plants
>300 plants ECOVAR Std Plants
>1,000 plants
3
Growth opportunities Product portfolio serving mega trends
Growth markets
Clean energy
Healthcare
Leveraging Gases & Engineering business synergies
04/02/2013
4
Linde pursuing all three CCS pathways Technology Development & Solution Offering Technology
Pre-combustion
Linde Portfolio
Process
ASU
Gasifier
CO Shift
Gas cleaning (Rectisol)
CO2 purification & compression
Feedstock
CO2
Feedstock
Oxyfuel
ASU
Boiler
DeSOx
DeNOx
CO2 purification & compression CO2
Feedstock
Post-combustion
Boiler
DeSOx
DeNOx
CO2 capture & compression CO2
04/02/2013
5
Linde Overview & Focus on CCUS Pathways PCC Technology & Update on DOE Project Current CCUS Activities & Focus Areas
04/02/2013
6
Project Objectives
Overall Objective —
Demonstrate Linde-BASF post combustion capture technology by incorporating BASF’s amine-based solvent process in a 1 MWel slipstream pilot plant and achieving at least 90% capture from a coal-derived flue gas while demonstrating significant progress toward achievement of DOE target of less than 35% increase in levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)
Specific Objectives
Fußzeile
—
Complete a techno-economic assessment of a 550 MWel power plant incorporating the Linde-BASF post-combustion CO2 capture technology to illustrate the benefits
—
Design, build and operate the 1MWel pilot plant at a coal-fired power plant host site providing the flue gas as a slipstream
—
Implement parametric tests to demonstrate the achievement of target performance using data analysis
—
Implement long duration tests to demonstrate solvent stability and obtain critical data for scale-up and commercial application
7
DE-FE0007453 Project Participants
Partner/
Lead contact(s)
Key Role(s)
DOE-NETL
Andrew P. Jones, Project Manager
-Funding & Sponsorship
Linde LLC
Krish Krishnamurthy, PI Stevan Jovanovic, Technical Lead
-Prime contract -Overall program management -Operations and testing
BASF
Iven Clausen (BASF SE) Sean Rigby (BASF Corp)
-OASE® blue technology owner -Basic design -Solvent supply and analysis
EPRI
Richard Rhudy
-Techno-economics review -Independent validation of test analysis and results
Southern Co./NCCC
Frank Morton Michael England
-NCCC Host site (Wilsonville, AL) -Infrastructure and utilities for pilot plant build and operations
Linde Engineering, Dresden
Torsten Stoffregen Harald Kober
-Basic engineering -Support for commissioning -Operations and testing
SFPC (Linde Eng)
Lazar Kogan Keith Christian
-Detailed engineering -Procurement and installation
Organization
Fußzeile
8
Project schedule by budget period and task
Task #
TITLE
Q1 1
2012 Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1
2013 Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1
2014 Q2 Q3
Q4 Q1
Q2
2015 Q3
Q4
Program Management
Budget Period 1 2
Techno-Economic Evaluation
3
Pilot plant optimization and basic design
4
Pilot plant system design and engineering
5
Pilot plant cost and safety analysis Go - No Go DECISION
Budget Period 2 6
Supply of plant equipment and materials
7
Plant construction and commissioning
Current status
Mechanical completion of pilot plant Budget Period 3 8
Start-up and initial operation
9
Parametric testing
10
Long duration continuous operation
11
Final economic analysis and commercialization plan Project Closeout
2/4/2013 Fußzeile
9
Project progress and accomplishments by task (Budget Period 1) Task#
Task Description
Key Objectives
Accomplishments
Program Management
Complete project management plan and implement to agreed cost and schedule.
- Project kick-off meeting held
Techno-economic evaluation
Complete techno-economic analysis on a 550 MWe coalfired power plant incorporating Linde-BASF PCC technology.
-Techno-economic assessment completed and presented to DOE-NETL
Pilot plant optimization and basic design
Define pilot plant design basis and the key features incorporated. Complete basic design and engineering.
-Design basis document completed and pilot plant features selected.
4
Pilot plant design and engineering
Complete detailed design and engineering of the pilot plant.
- Detailed engineering nearing completion (90% model)
5
Pilot plant cost and safety analysis
Complete preliminary environment, health and safety assessment for the pilot plant
- NEPA document completed with NCCC and DOE-NETL approval obtained
1
2
3
- Updated project management plan completed
- Benefits of technology demonstrated
- Basic design and engineering completed.
-Preliminary EH&S topical report completed - Vendor packages developed and firm cost estimates obtained
Fußzeile
10
Linde-BASF experience in large scale carbon capture CO2 capture in NG processing: Re-injection Project - Hammerfest World’s first industrial project to deliver CO2 separated onshore from the wellstream back offshore for re-injection into a reservoir
700,000 tpa CO2 capture and re-injection (part of world scale LNG project, Snøhvit, Norway)
— Partnership with StatoilHydro Petroleum — Melkoya island near the town of Hammerfest, Norway —CO2 sequestration and re-injection integral part of the Hammerfest LNG project. Linde performed design, EPC and commissioning —One dedicated well for CO2 storage in a sandstone formation sealed by shale cap. — Re-injection started in April 2008 — BASF’s OASE® purple process used in CO2 capture
11
11
Post combustion CO2 capture: Challenges compared to CO2 removal in NG/LNG plants
Pressure CO2 partial pressure Flowrate Gas composition Treated gas specification
NG/LNG
Flue gas
50 – 100 bars
1 bara
1 – 40 bars
30 – 150 mbars
up to 60 mio scf/hr
up to 120 mio scf/hr
CH4, C2H6, …, CO2, H2S, COS, CxHy,S, H2O 50 ppm – 2 % CO2 S < 4 – 10 ppm
Energy efficiency
not a key issue
N2, O2, H2O, CO2, (SOx) NOx CO2 removal rate (90 %) low amine emissions of highest priority η 7-10% points
large volume flows @ low pressure solvent stability emissions of solvent overall power plant efficiency losses Fußzeile
12
BASF OASE® blue Technology Development Designed for PCC Applications Equilibria
Kinetics Stability
80 20
70
100 18
50 40 30 20
90
14 12 10 8 6
10 0
MEA tested solvent
16
MEA
content of amine
60
Absorption rate
cyclic capacity / Nm3/t
90
Fundamental Lab Scale R&D: Advanced Solvents Screening, Development, Optimization
tested solvents MEA
80
4
70
2 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1
1
1 2
1 3
4 1
5 1
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
0 2
2 1
2 2
2 3
4 2
5 2
2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
0 3
3 1
3 2
3 3
4 3
5 3
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
0 4
4 1
4 2
4 3
4
5 4
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
0 5
5 1
5 2
5 3
4 5
5
5 6
5 7
5 8
9 5
0 6
6 1
6 2
6 3
6 4
5 6
6 6
6 7
6 8
9 6
0 7
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
5 7
7 6
7 7
7 8
9 7
0 8
8 1
8 2
8 3
8 4
5 8
8 6
8 7
8 8
9 8
0 9
9 1
9 2
9 3
9 4
5 9
9 6
9 7
9 8
9
1 0 0
0 1 1
0 2 1
1 0 3
1 0 4
1 0 5
0 6 1
1 0 7
1 0 8
1 0 9
1 1 0
1 1
1 2
1 1 3
1 1 4
1 1 5
1 6
1 7
1 1 8
1 1 9
1 2 0
2 1 1
2 2 1
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 2 5
2 6 1
2 7 1
1 2 8
1 2 9
1 3 0
3 1 1
3 2 1
1 3
1 3 4
1 3 5
3 6 1
3 7 1
1 3 8
1 3 9
1 4 0
4 1 1
1 4 2
1 4 3
1 4 4
1 4 5
4 6 1
4 7 1
1 4 8
1 4 9
1 5 0
5 1 1
1 5 2
1 5 3
1 5 4
1 5 5
5 6 1
5 7 1
1 5 8
1 5 9
1 6 0
6 1 1
1 6 2
1 6 3
1 6 4
1 6 5
6 6 1
0 10 screened0 solvents
20
30
60
Loading 0
40
100
50
200
60
300
400
500
600 time [h]
BASF Miniplant, Ludwigshafen, Germany: Solvent Performance Verification
0.45 MWe PCC Pilot, Niederaussem, Germany: Preliminary Process Optimization Fußzeile
13
Niederaussem* pilot plant key results
OASE® blue
total content carbonic acidsacids total content ofofcarboxilic
MEA
MEA OASE blue
New BASF Development ®
duration of operation duration of operation
Acknowledgement: * Pilot project partner Fußzeile
RWE
~ 5,000 hrs
>90% carbon capture rate achieved >20% improvement in specific energy compared to MEA New BASF solvent is very stable compared to MEA
14
Solutions for Large Scale PCC Plant (1100 Mwel Power) Design challenges Optimizing CAPEX by reduced number of trains to handle 18,000 tpd CO2 - 2 process trains selected - reduced plot space
Compressor section two lines per train flexible turn down operation
Lower number of trains results in bigger size of components, e.g.
Fußzeile
–
Absorption column:
diameter ca.18 m, height ca. 75 m on site fabrication required
–
Pipes ducts and valves: diameters up to 7 meters
–
Plot :
ca. 100 m x 260 m 15
Concepts for a Large Scale PCC Plant Key elements of plant costs Main challenges —
Large equipment size requires new concepts
—
Required plot area is very significant
—
Alternative materials need to be assessed
—
New equipment arrangements needed
—
FIeld fabrication
—
Large pipe and duct
Linde studies to address challenges —
Scaling to a very large single train
—
Optimize equipment arrangement (flue gas blower, pre-cooler, absorption columns sump etc)
—
Develop new column construction materials
—
Optimize machinery options
Total plant cost distribution
Engineering and supervision Equipment incl. columns (w/o blowers & compressors) Blowers & compressors Bulk Material Civil Construction
Fußzeile
16
Simplified process flow diagram of the 1MWe pilot plant
Stream
CO2-Lean stream
Recovered CO2
FLUE GAS RETURN
Blower Make-up Water
S1
S2 CW
Make-up Water
S3
Condenser
Filter*
Interstage cooler
Desorber
Absorber
CW
CW
Drain* Reboiler
LP STEAM
CW
To CW HX
Condensing Cooler
From CW HX
CW
Make Up Solvent Tank
Condensate El. Power Supply
Solvent* Cooling Water In Cooling Water Out
Utilities for 30_TPD Pilot Plant LP Steam lb/hr 3,600 El. Power kW 190 Cooling Water GPM 570 Makeup water GPM 0.3 Fußzeile
Linde PILOT PLANT – NCCC/Southern POWER PLANT Interface with Tie In Points
FLUE GAS FEED downstream of DCC & Blower
S1
S2
S3
Feed gas
CO2 Lean
CO2 Rich
Temperature
F
123.8
114.1
104.0
Pressure
psia
14.9
13.8
47.9
H2O
vol%
13.30
9.49
2.31
CO2
vol%
12.14
1.45
97.67
CO
vol%
0.00
0.00
0.00
N2
vol%
69.36
82.85
0.01
O2
vol%
5.20
6.21
0.00
Flow rate (total)
mscf/hr
217.4
182.0
24.3
Flow rate (total)
lb/hr
16,517
13,209
2,782
CO2 Recovered
TPD
30.0
17
Linde-BASF advanced PCC plant design*
FLUE GAS FEED downstream of DCC & Blower Optimized Blower Concept
Make-up Water
Gravity Flow Interstage Cooler
S Advanced emission control system 1
CW
Filter*
CW
Desorber
Absorber
Advanced Column Material & Design
Higher Desorption Pressure Optional Interstage Heater
LP_Steam Condensate
Reboiler
LP STEAM
CW
Optimized Energy Consumption
To CW HX
Condensing Cooler
From CW HX
CW
Fußzeile
Make-up Water
Condenser
CW
Interstage cooler
Recovered CO2
Blower
High capacity structured packing
FLUE GAS RETURN
CO2-Lean stream
Make Up Solvent Tank
Solvent*
Condensate El. Power Supply Cooling Water In Cooling Water Out
18
Techno-Economic Assessment: Linde-BASF PCC Plant Design for 550 MWe PC Power Plant Specifications and Design Basis identical to DOE/NETL Report 2007/1281 as per DE-FOA-0000403 requirements — Bituminous Illinois #6 Coal Characteristics — Site Characteristics and Ambient Conditions — Pulverized Coal Boiler Design — Subcritical Steam Turbine Design — Steam Cycle Conditions
UniSim Design Suite R390, integrated with — Brian Research & Engineering ProMax® software for PCC parametric optimization — BASF’s proprietary package for rigorous solvent performance predictions
● Single train PCC design for ~ 13,000 TPD CO2 capture ● 40-50% reduced plot area to 180m x 120 m
— Environmental Controls and Performance — Balance of Plant — Economic Assumptions and Methodology
Fußzeile
19
PCC – Power Plant Typical Process Integration Option (LB-1)
MAKEUP 13 WATER
14
OXIDATION AIR Treated flue gas to stack
Flue gas blower
CO2 to Compression
Make-up water
BAGHOUSE
10
FGD
11
Absorber
16
Condenser
Water Cooler
Water Wash
Separator
Interstage Cooler
Solvent Filter
21
Water Wash
NaOH Tank
Desorber
Solvent Cooler
LP_Steam
Interstage Heater
Cooler DCC
Condensate return
Rich/Lean Solvent Hex
Flue gas
TO STACK
LP/IP_Steam
8
9
ID FANS
Condensate return
Reboiler
12
19
CO2 CAPTURE & COMPRESSION PLANT
CO2 COMPR.
CO2 PRODUCT
Solvent Storage Tank
15
FLY ASH
INFILTRATION AIR
LIMESTONE GYPSUM SLURRY
5
SCR 20
HOT REHEAT 2
3
4
MAIN STEAM 24 17
COLD REHEAT
18
25
BOILER
SECONDARY AIR FANS
26
PULVERIZED COAL
1
HP ST
IP ST
LP ST
PRIMARY AIR FANS EL. POWER GENERATOR
6
COAL FEED
7
CONDENSER
23
22
BOTTOM ASH
BOILER FEEDWATER
Fußzeile
FEEDWATER HEATER SYSTEM
20
PCC – Power Plant Advanced Process Integration Option (LB-2) Partial Recovery of Sensible Heat from Flue Gas
17b
LP Steam for Desorber’s Interstage Heater
18b MAKEUP 13 WATER
14
OXIDATION AIR Treated flue gas to stack
CO2 to Compression
Flue gas blower Make-up water
BAGHOUSE
10
11
HRU
11a
FGD
Absorber
16
Condenser
Water Cooler
Water Wash
Separator
Interstage Cooler
Solvent Filter
NaOH Tank Solvent Cooler
21
Water Wash
Desorber LP_Steam
Interstage Heater
Cooler DCC
Condensate return
Rich/Lean Solvent Hex
Flue gas
TO STACK
LP/IP_Steam
Reboiler
8
9
ID FANS
Condensate return
Solvent Storage Tank
12
CO2 CAPTURE & COMPRESSION PLANT
15
FLY ASH
INFILTRATION AIR
17a
LIMESTONE GYPSUM SLURRY
5
19
SCR 2
3
4
MAIN STEAM 24
BPST
17
COLD REHEAT
CO2 COMPR.
CO2 PRODUCT
18
25
BOILER
SECONDARY AIR FANS
26
PULVERIZED COAL
1
20
Power Cogeneration Utilizing BPST
HOT REHEAT
HP ST
IP ST
LP ST
PRIMARY AIR FANS EL. POWER GENERATOR
6
COAL FEED
7
CONDENSER
23
22
BOTTOM ASH
BOILER FEEDWATER
Fußzeile
FEEDWATER HEATER SYSTEM
Significantly Increased Power Plant Efficiency 21
Comparative PCC Performance Results Linde-BASF vs Reference DOE/NETL Case* Effect of PCC technology im provem ents on increm ental energy requirem ent for pow er plant w ith CO2 capture and com pression
Energy demand for different PCC plants NETL-MEA
Linde-BASF PCC (LB-1)
Linde-BASF PCC (LB-2)
100%
Incremental fuel requirement for CO2 capture and compression
100% 90%
Specific energy demand elements
80%
70%
60% `
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 0%
NETL-MEA
Reboiler Duty *
Cooling Duty
Fußzeile Reference Case # 10 of DOE-NETL 2007/1281 Report
Electrical Power
Linde-BASF PCC (LB-1)
Linde-BASF PCC (LB-2) 22
Total PCC Plant Cost
Total Cost of PCC Plant for 550 MW PC Pow er Plant
CO2 Removal
CO2 Compression & Drying
Significantly reduced total PCC
500
450
plant Cost relative to DOE/NETL
400
2007 Reference Case #10 due to
Total Cost of PCC (MM 2007_$)
350
1. Reduced coal combustion (CO2 production) for 11.1% (LB-1) or 15.2% (LB-2)
300
250
2. Single train PCC design
200
150
3. Optimized PCC plant design 100
50
0 Case 10 - NETL_2007
Fußzeile
LINDE-BASF - Option LB-1 LINDE-BASF - Option LB-2* PCC Technology Options
23
Power plant efficiency improvements and LCOE reductions with Linde-BASF PCC technology Incremental improvements in power plant efficiency from MEA based PCC to LINDE-BASF LB-2 Option
Incremental Reductions in Levelized Cost Of Electricity from M EA based PCC to LINDE-BASF LB-2 Option
30% 29.4%
$125 119.6
114.1
109.0
103.5
101.2
101.2
$120
29% 1.35%
5.5 $115
28%
5.1 $110
1.39%
5.5
$105
26%
LCOE (2007$/MWhr)
Net HHV Efficiency
27%
1.76% 24.9%
25%
2.3 $100 $95 $90 $85
24%
$80
23%
$75 $70
22%
Source: Project DE-FE0007453 Techno-economic analysis of 550 MWe PC power plant with CO2 capture, May 2012. Fußzeile
SF
)
gr at
N D EBA
io n
n tio
te
LI
(L
(L B2
B1
s en t im
In
pt O
ta nd
ss
iz a
En ha n PC C
LINDE-BASF (LB-2)
H ea
Heat and Power Integration (LB-2)
ce
PCC Optimization (LB-1)
Pr o
Advanced Solvent
Po w er
S d ce an Ad v
NETL - MEA
ce m
ol ve nt
EA -M N ET L
20%
)
$65
21%
24
Detailed engineering timeline: Key dates
Jan-12
Feb-12
Mar-12
Apr-12
May-12
Jun-12
Jul-12
Aug-12
Sep-12
Oct-12
Nov-12
Dec-12
- Design review - PSR 1 and 2 - Hazop - Evaluate optimum layout
- 60% model review - Equipment packages
- Vendor selection - Cost compilation - 90% model review - PSR 3
- 3-D model - 30% model review - Update P&ID (Hazop actions) - Module package - RFQ to vendors
PSR: Process Safety review; P&ID: Process and Instrumentation Diagrams; RFQ: Request for quotes; Hazop: Hazard and operability study
Fußzeile
25
Task 3: Design Selection Pilot Plant Layout
Optimized plant layout to be investigated
Fußzeile
26
3D Model of NCCC site with Linde-BASF Pilot Plant
Linde-BASF Pilot Plant Fußzeile
27
3D Model of Linde-BASF 1 MWe Pilot Plant
Absorber
Structural support for windload protection
Stripper
Fußzeile
28
3D Model of Linde-BASF Pilot Plant modular design (3 level structure)
Fußzeile
29
Key design and engineering features and decisions
●
Joint design basis development (Linde and SCS/NCCC) for the nominal 1 MWe pilot plant
●
Leveraged Niederaussem pilot plant experience for early design selection decision on target solvent, pilot plant preliminary sizing, process control and analytical sampling and measurement
●
Targeted 1 m absorber diameter size, leading to testing capability to 30 TPD CO2 or 1.5 MWe equivalent – confirmed utility availability with upside margins
●
Integrated modeling approach for detailed engineering – start with the existing NCCC facility model with tie-in points defined and integrated into pilot plant model to avoid conflicts in build phase
●
Equipment and module packages sent to multiple vendors and vendor selection performed based on cost, capability and eagerness for involvement in project
●
Concrete column sections evaluated but determined to impact project timeline significantly – currently allowing for swapping the SS bottom section of absorber with concrete section.
●
Concrete column section engineering design to be completed in BP2 and cost proposal made during the continuation request for BP3.
●
Current pilot plant equipment procurement and build schedule (BP2) requires BP2 timeframe extension by 3-months. Will explore improving the schedule.
Fußzeile
30
Project progress: Key Project Milestones (Budget Period 1) Status Budget Period 1 (Dec. 1, 2011 – Feb. 28, 2013) — Submit project management plan (03/09/2012) √ — Conduct kick-off meeting with DOE-NETL (11/15/2011) √ — Complete initial techno-economic analysis on a 550 MWel power plant (05/04/2012) √ — Complete basic design and engineering of a 1 MWe pilot plant to be tested at NCCC (06/20/2012) √ — Execute host site agreement (10/31/2012) – completed 01/09/2013 √ — Complete initial EH&S assessment (10/31/2012) – Completed 12/14/2012 √ — Complete detailed pilot plant engineering and cost analyis for the 1 MWe pilot plant to be tested at NCCC (01/31/2013) Planned for completion by 01/31/2013
Fußzeile
31
Status against Budget Period 1 decision point success criteria Decision Point
Basis for Decision/Success Criteria
Status
Successful completion of all work proposed in Budget Period 1
On track
Demonstrate a 10% reduction in capital costs with Linde-BASF CO2 capture process
30.5 to 34.7% for PCC and 16.6 to 17.3% for integrated power plant
Completion of
Demonstrate a LCOE increase of less than 65% over the baseline
62.2% and 58.8% for 2 options considered
Budget Period 1
Submission of an Executed Host Site Agreement
Completed
Submission of a Topical Report – Initial Techno-Economic Analysis
Completed
Submission of a Topical Report – Initial EH&S Assessment
Submitted
Submission of a Topical Report – Detailed Pilot Plant Engineering and Cost Analysis
By 1/31/2013
Submission and approval of a Continuation Application in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award
Presentation to DOENETL on Jan 14, 2013
Fußzeile
32
Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
Acknowledgement: This presentation is based on work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0007453.
Disclaimer: “This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.”
Fußzeile
33
Linde Overview & Focus on CCUS Pathways PCC Technology & Update on DOE Project CCUS Activities & Focus Areas
04/02/2013
34
Linde Focus Areas
Key Goal Challenges
– Develop repeatable commercial-scale projects – Continue focus on technology advancement – Carbon value, lack of planning certainty – Risk-sharing & value-sharing of emitter, capturer, user
Technology Development – – –
Pre-Combustion: Rectisol advancements, improved integration Post-Combustion: commercial-scale demo, 3rd gen technology Oxy-Fuel: Advanced HP oxy-fuel
Industry & Government Collaboration – –
Commercial Areas of Focus
Project Activities – – –
Summit’s Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP) – Odessa, TX UK DECC Projects: including oxy-fuel & precombustion Various EOR-driven opportunities in US and abroad including NG-based CCUS
04/02/2013
Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC) National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative (NEORI)
– –
“Bankable” arrangements Risk-sharing models
35
CCUS – It can be done!!
< 20% of people attempting to climb Mount Everest are successful in reaching the summit … but some do!
How can we get CCUS projects over the finish line with today’s “carbon valuation”?? Continued technology advancement, creative business models & rational risk-sharing
