The twelfth annual Carbon Capture Utilization and Sequestration Conference was held again in Pittsburgh over 13-16 May. It was opened by Anthony Cugini Director NETL and the Honourable Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan, and its timing was just after the news that the atmosphere had reached 400 ppm of CO₂. These openers were followed by IEAGHG’s John Gale, who emphasised this 400ppm point as the prompt for more urgent action, and discussed whether CO₂ utilisation was a game-changer or distraction in the context of the net emissions reductions required.  This was followed by lots of great updates on North American projects, operating, being built, and being planned. In subsequent plenaries updates were also heard from the UK, EU, Norway, and Australia.

The five hundred plus attendees were treated to two afternoons of six parallel sessions of technical presentations covering all aspects of CCUS, as well as two good sessions of posters, all of which provided a lot of new information!

IEAGHG work was presented not just in the plenary. Tim Dixon and Millie Basava-Reddi gave four other presentations, and two contractors presented IEAGHG-commissioned work.  The presentations covered work on Subsurface Resource Interactions with CO₂ Storage, Induced Seismicity and CCS, Improving Leakage Monitoring Protocols with New Monitoring Techniques, and Transboundary Regulatory Developments. These presentations can be seen by IEAGHG members on http://www.ieaghg.org/index.php?/20100106145/iea-ghg-presentations.html . In addition, ICF presented the IEAGHG-commissioned work on Financial Mechanisms for Liability, and ARI presented the IEAGHG-commissioned work on Implications of Gas Production from Shales and Coal for CO₂ Geological Storage. This was one of a number of presentations on this topic, and may be the first time potential storage capacities for CO₂ in gas shales are being estimated and presented. From the ARI work for IEAGHG these are up to 740GT CO₂ globally, with 249 GT in North America, this is in the same order as in storage related to CO₂-EOR, and therefore suggests this area warrants further attention.

The conference concluded with a discussion panel on CO₂ utilisation in the USA, with many good and up-to-date points made by all, including on the life cycle emissions from CO₂-EOR, and the high demand for CO₂ for use in oil recovery. The final talk was from the Californian EPA on their emissions trading scheme becoming reality and their intentions on CCS fitting into it.

An excellent conference with a North American emphasis and lots of new information, including the seven presentations from IEAGHG. And with 400ppm being reached, there appeared to be a renewed focus on the need for CCUS to actually reduce emissions, so will it become CCuS?

The University of Texas at Austin Stand at Pittsburgh Conference

Tim Dixon and Millie Basava-Reddi

 

I had the pleasure to be invited today in Pittsburgh to a private luncheon hosted by the Premier of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall, to discuss the Boundary Dam project and plans for dissemination of the results from this project internationally. Mike Monea from SaskPower outlined the business case for Boundary Dam; the choice was between low cost lignite and natural gas as the generating fuel. Lignite won because they could predict the price of the coal for the next 20 years, they could not forecast future prices of gas. In building the plant Mike was predicting lower capes costs than quoted in previous EPRI studies which is encouraging, however I suspect we may be comparing apples and pears as the cost of transport and storage is not included in SaskPower's costs, nevertheless mike indicated that having built this plant he feels that he can reduce the cost of the capture island by a further 20 to 30% which is a significant drop in costs for the next generation of plants. Also his parasitic load was only 21% compared to that quoted in other studies of 24 to 40%. So this project is already showing the benefits of building such demonstration plants and we look forward to learning more as operation starts.

This morning I think I got a brief idea of what into the lion’s den means. Ed Helminski who raises the Annual US CCUS conference asked me to give my views on CO₂ utilisation to the Conference in a key note address to delegates. The main points I tried to make were: that utilisation must involve permanent storage of CO₂ whereas in my view most of the uses are temporary storage only. I also made the point that apart from CO₂-EOR there was no significant market for the utilisation products the developers were producing. For CO₂-EOR I believe that this is not permanent storage as there is some emissions leakage due to the energy used to recycle and reinject the CO₂. Also I questioned whether CO₂-EOR was not really merely transferring emissions from the energy to the transport sector where global emissions are steadily increasing and we have to look at the whole picture and not just one sector.

However I did commend CO₂-EOR as a game changer as it is helping to finance demonstration projects in some parts of the world which will help build confidence in CCS which is essential to move the technology to broader implementation.

The audience’s response was tempered but I did get a couple of questions on price of carbon under the ETS and why CO₂-EOR was unlikely in the EU. At the tea break a few oil industry people politely tried to put me right that oil demand was statis not rising and CO₂-EOR oil displaces higher carbon oil. Sorry still don't buy these arguments. CO₂-EOR in my mind is a temporary measure and we need to get back to CCS soon.

May 9th then goes down in history as the first time mankind has experienced 400ppm in our atmosphere and that I am afraid is something we collectively should be ashamed about. What we need now is concerted global action to ensure we are not in coming years reporting 420 ppm or worse. I think the time has come for governments across the globe and in particular the big emitters to take positive action to reduce their emissions significantly in the coming years through the rapid deployment of low carbon technology. The time for stalling is over.

To benefit from the gathering of international CCS experts for the IEAGHG members meeting, the Petroleum Technology Research Centre of Regina organised a one day symposium on Canadian and global CCS developments.
After the welcomes by the host Malcolm Wilson(PTRC), Kelly Thabmimuthu (IEAGHG) and the Deputy Minister of the Economy for Saskachewan Kent Campbell, John Gale (IEAGHG) gave an update of CCS project activity around the world. John announced the news that the observatory on Mauna Loa was detecting tat atmposphereic CO₂ levels had reached 400ppm. The first time since the Pliocene era.
Of particular note were the presentations on Canadian activities. Boundary Dam power station is well underway in construction of a post-combustion capture system, which in 2014 will capture 1 million tCO₂ pa for storage in the Aquistore project and use in the Weyburn EOR operation. This is he first full-scale capture plant on a coal power station in the world. A new CO₂ pipeline 41 miles long will be constructed within the next year for this.
Also of interest was the development of CO₂-EOR for the heavy oil reservoirs, and the monitoring programme with international collaboration for the Aquistore project.
Canada also led the world with the first standard for CO₂ geological storage (CSA Z741) and are leading in the international work of ISO to develop international standards.
Shell’s Quest project is also under construction, taking CO₂ from an oil upgrader plant to store in a deep saline formation.
Also of note is Cenovus’s Weyburn CO₂-EOR project, which although the monitoring research project (IEAGHG Weyburn-Midale CO₂ Monitoring and Storage Project) completed in 2012 with the production of a best practice guide, Cenovus will continue monitoring the CO₂ flood with 3D seismic and testing new techniques in the overburden.
The symposium was sponsored by Stantec, Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and Suncor Energy.

The 43rd meeting of the IEAGHG Executive committee was held in Regina, SA, Canada and was hosted by NRCan and PTRC our Canadian members. The meeting provided the IEAGHG team the opportunity to present an update on the work we have been undertaking in the last 6 months. We presented updates on 5 studies we are close to reporting to get members comments prior to publication. These included: a study on future technological change for post combustion capture plant, a study on the options available to mitigate migration in storage reservoirs, a study on dehydration of CO₂, a study on bio methane and CCS and a review of the status of mitigation of Non CO₂ Greenhouse Gases. In addition the team presented updates on the development of the Monitoring Tool on the website, it's ISO standard activities and the outcome of the RISKMAN guideline activity that we participated in.

Members selected the studies that IEAGHG will start in the coming months which included: a study looking at process control options for PCC, a study in oxy gas fired turbines, a study on public perception of CO₂ pipelines, a study on CO₂adsorption processes for natural gas and finally a study to look at options for CCS in the pulp and paper industry.

Members also found the time to debate the new EC communication on CCS and select the venue for the GHGT-13 conference in 2016 but for now that remains a secret.

Tuesday 6th May 2013 and as part of our 43rd Executive Meeting we are visiting the Boundary Dam power plant in southern Saskatchewan , Canada. Boundary dams unit 3 is undergoing a major refit with a new boiler and steam turbines being added plus the worlds first full flow post combustion capture unit. Whilst currently under construction they will begin capturing CO₂ in October 2013, well ahead of any other CCS demonstration plant in the world.

I guess what struck me the most was the sheer size of the capture facility with its SO2 and CO₂ amine scrubbing units using Cansolv technology and the gas compressors unit by Mann Turbo. I remember visiting the University of Reginas pilot at Boundary Dam many years ago and thought that was a piece of kit. Recently I visted Technology Centre Mongstad on its opening and was impressed by the size of the scrubbing tower on the Aker 10MW pilot at Mongstad. However nothing prepared me for Boundary Dam and this is only a 115Mwe unit . The FGD unit is actually slightly smaller than the CO₂ absorber tower with the Desorber tower of similar stature all poking out above the building cladding into the sunny skies they are an impressive sight. The single Mann gas compressor was enormous I recall the gas compressors at Dakota gasification there I think they had two to do a much smaller duty. It is a feat of German engineering that Mann Turbo can design with such confidence a single CO₂ compressor train for this unit.

I look forward to hearing this plant is operational in October and hope to come back and see it operating in the future. With some trepidation I also look forward to seeing the next scale up of a PCC unit on a 500mw or 660 mew boiler.

From 15^th to 18^th April 2013 I visited EnBW’s amine scrubbing pilot plant at Heilbronn in Germany. After a warm welcome from Dr Sven Unterberger and his team who are operating the pilot plant I was invited to tour the facilities. The Heilbronn Combined Heat and Power Plant has a total electric output of 1010 MW_el and also supplies 320 MW_th for district heating.  The boilers are equipped with state-of-the-art flue gas treatment systems such as DeNO_x, ESP and wet FGD.

A flue gas slip stream of 1500 Nm³/h (representing about 0.05 % of the total flue gas volume of Unit 7) is taken downstream of the FGD and passed on to the CO₂ capture plant, which is designed to capture 300 kg CO₂/h (or 7.2 t CO₂/d) at a capture rate of 90 %. The pilot plant was constructed by German engineering company atea Anlagentechnik GmbH as an “IP-free” design and started operation on 1^st March 2011. The layout includes a pre-scrubber that cools the flue gas to about
30 °C and reduces the SO₂ concentration to a minimum by adding NaOH. Both the pre-scrubber and absorber are made of polypropylene and contain random packing of polypropylene. Due to structural requirements the absorber, which has a total height of about 40 m, is reinforced with glass-fibre plastics. The desorber in contrast is made of stainless steel with a random packing of stainless steel as well.

During my stay there was a test campaign with 30 % MEA as a solvent in order to investigate the performance of the capture plant under different loads and dynamic load change conditions of the power plant. Another important issue that has been examined in parallel is the degradation of the solvent. In a preceding test campaign a sudden increase in inorganic and organic acid anions as well as dissolved metals after about 900 hours of operations was observed. This was accompanied by a typical discoloration of the solvent that is frequently reported for MEA in the literature. In order to address the solvent degradation issue and minimise the concentration of degradation products EnBW is currently testing different reclaiming technologies at the pilot plant. From this, a solvent management system will be developed and approved.

Results of the first year’s testing programme were presented at GHGT-11 and will be soon published in the conference proceedings Energy Procedia.

For further information on the pilot plant please contact:

Dr Sven Unterberger

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Jasmin and I from the IEAGHG Capture and Integration team attended a course on ‘An Introduction to the options for Power Generation’ at E.ON Engineering Academy, Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station on 8-12 April 2013. This course focuses on developing understanding of various power generation options available in the current economic and environmentally conscious climate. The course was given by very experienced and knowledgeable Mr G. Tonge, who has worked several decades at E.ON in different areas of coal, gas and nuclear power generation. The course covers technical and operation details of different type of power generation technologies such as coal, gas, nuclear, combined heat and power, wind, hydro, biomass, solar, geothermal, wave and tide. Moreover during this course topics related to UK electricity market, environmental considerations, economics and plant choice were also covered. I have personally found this course very useful in developing in depth understanding on power plant operation and the electricity market.

Yesterday, my manager commented that he didn’t understand social media, and that got me thinking. Over recent years, IEAGHG have grown into social media usage, but in many ways we are still very young in this new communications medium. The question addressed by this blog is what does social media achieve that conventional press releases and publications don’t?

The answer… well, that’s debatable. I think that they actually achieve different things, but that’s because they are aimed at different audiences. Also, the different social media options each have their own distinct advantage; if we are looking to disseminate a new report, then LinkedIn would probably be the best option. If we were sending out a reminder of a conference or network deadline, then Twitter would be more appropriate. If we wanted to facilitate discussion between a specific interest group, then setting up a group on FaceBook would be the option of choice. That said, LinkedIn hosts a lot of discussions too, but in my experience these tend to be between more informed experts, whereas FaceBook hosts more discussions involving less informed but equally interested members of the public.

So why should we use social media? Well that’s a much simpler question. In this day and age, we need to embrace all the options available. As CCS becomes more ‘mainstream news’ and the public become more aware of the intricacies of this science, then we need to be more publicly visible; we have a lot of information and without using social media, IEAGHG is not going to become well known as a valued source of information.

IEAGHG is impartial, we include an expert review of all of our work, and make these reports freely available after a period of members exclusivity. We are therefore well placed to occupy a space as an informed, yet impartial source of information for the general public… but not if we are not known. Social Media is often a first stop for people wishing to find out about a topic – you hear there is a CCS project being proposed in your area, you take to Twitter to find out what people are saying about it, or you go to FaceBook to see if there are any groups discussing the project. If IEAGHG are on these sites, openly discussing CCS, and facilitating access to our information, then we will become known, we will become useful to a greater number of audiences, and we will gain a reputation for reliable, impartial information and because of this, IEAGHG occupies a unique situation whereby we can make a difference to the public acceptance of CCS, and by actively engaging the public, it has been shown that acceptance is more likely.

This doesn’t sit well with some; in the scientific community, the more traditional method for communications is to not communicate until things are certain, defined, and results confirmed. Unfortunately, opponents to CCS do not share these values, and will take to social media, conventional media and any other means with un-supported claims and miss-reported facts and this is what will be found and read by interested parties. By remaining silent, the scientific community appears to have no answer to often false accusations by opposition groups. A lack of communication can be more damaging than anything else; look at Barendrecht in the Netherlands, a lack of early communication led to a large public opposition that ultimately acted as a show-stopper for the project. The knock-on effects for CCS in the Netherlands have been drastic and far-reaching.

By proactive early public engagement, this situation can be avoided. Looking at the QICS project in Scotland, where a planned release of CO₂ underneath the seabed was undertaken, early communications and engagement actually resulted in the local community positively supporting the project, and using it to local advantage as a tourist attraction. This type of engagement matters, and can really make a difference.

So Social Media is important, getting information out there is important, and IEAGHG and other groups should take heed and learn to communicate by any and all means if we want to see CCS deployed at a commercial scale.

 

Good news, bad news, and good news.

Good news. COP-18 and CMP-8 have concluded after a marathon 36-hour final session, with the agreement for a second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol. This will run from 2013 to the end of 2020. This entails new legally-binding emissions commitments for the developed countries remaining in the Kyoto Protocol, notably the 27 EU Member States, Australia, Norway, Ukraine, and developing countries are included but without emission targets.

Bad News. The emissions targets are not high enough and not on enough countries to significantly reduce global emissions. Some major emitting developed countries will not be in; USA, Canada, Japan, Russia and New Zealand.

Good news. All this is significantly better than no second Commitment Period and no countries with emissions targets.

Whilst many think the emission targets for individual countries are set too low, this does keep the global framework for emissions reductions and emissions trading mechanism (eg CDM) operational while countries make progress on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) towards a legally-binding agreement for 2015 for all 194 UNFCCC countries (including USA and China). There is also some limiting of the carry-over of AAUs (hot-air).

Unexpected difficulties arose in the higher-level negotiations over the issue of compensation from developed countries for ‘loss and damage’ to developing countries as a result of climate change (caused mostly by their emissions). The potentially un-limited nature of this ringing alarms bells for some.

CCS outcomes

Earlier on the Friday, going into the final Plenaries, (which ran late, get postponed for further negotiations behind the scenes etc) we find that the CDM text going for approval to CMP has some material on CCS, some of it new:

“45 Welcomes the work undertaken by the Executive Board to adopt relevant documents regarding carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as clean development mechanism project activities;

46. [Encourages project developers to continue to develop and submit, for consideration by the Executive Board, methodologies relating to all project types underrepresented in the clean development mechanism [, including carbon dioxide capture and storage,] to facilitate the registration of such projects;] “

Paragraph 46 was subsequently dropped. And then the Decision from SBSTA to defer any further consideration of transboundary projects and a Global Reserve until SBSTA 45 (expected 2016).

47. Decides that the eligibility under the clean development mechanism of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations project activities which involve the transport of carbon dioxide from one country to another or which involve geological storage sites that are in more than one country and the establishment of a global reserve of certified emission reduction units for carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations project activities shall be considered by Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice at its forty-fifth session;

48. Also decides that while carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations project activities which involve the transport of carbon dioxide from one country to another or which involve geological storage sites that are in more than one country would merit inclusion under the clean development mechanism, more practical experience of carbon dioxide capture and storage project activities in geological formations under the clean development mechanism would be beneficial;” (note the paragraph numbers changed in the final version)

Technology Mechanism

The Technology Mechanism was partly operationalised, with the appointment of a consortium lead by UNEP to operate the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) for five years. It is anticipated that CCS will be included in the range of technologies assisted by this network.

Concluding thoughts

The world of climate change mitigation took significant steps forward, and CCS is now imbedded as a validated option to reduce emissions in both developed and developing countries. Much work is still to be done, and experience to be gained, and capacity to be built, but the building blocks for  climate change mitigation are in place and prospects for CCS exist with all of them.

Tim Dixon 9 Dec 2012

 

 

As the negotiations inch along towards agreement for a second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol and for the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) there is a realisation that although CCS negotiations have concluded, there has been a lot of other activity on CCS at this COP.

There are four 'official' UNFCCC Side-events on CCS and four 'unofficial' events. IEAGHG have presented or spoken at four so far, on Monday presenting our work on the Iron and Steel sector. By comparison at Durban there was only one 'official' Side-event on CCS (ours). Especially interesting at the Side-events here were the talks by Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia on their CCS project activities, with several pilot projects now in development in the region, supported by R&D programmes. Bio-CCS continues to gain prominence and interest, and the IEAGHG studies in this area are proving a valuable resource.

The need for information on CCS has been demonstrated both in the negotiations (eg where one negotiator questioned the basic risk, safety and uncertainty of CCS) and at the booths of CCS-related organisations which have been more popular than ever being visited by those seeking information on CCS. Also, there was a media-release here yesterday by seven green NGOs (ENGOs) who collaborated to produce a paper advocating actions to encourage CCS (see http://www.engonetwork.org ).

Victoria Osbourne on the University of Texas/IEAGHG Stand

The results of last week's negotiations on CCS were approved by SBSTA Plenary at 11:06pm on Saturday, and will go before CMP Plenary some time this Friday evening. Some observers are expressing dissappointment at the two CCS issues on transboundary and Global Reserve being deferred for four years, not realising that resolution of transboundary issues was always likely to take some time. For example, the London Convention, a large treaty which moves faster than UNFCCC because of its design and double pressure of ocean acidification as well as climate change, still took three years to reach a legal transboundary CCS amendment and another three years to make any further progress on the outstanding transboundary issues. The Global Reserve deferring is a different matter, there being no good arguments made for it now or to revive it in four years, but good arguments made for it to have been taken off the agenda now.

Ministers have now arrived, and the pressure is on to reach agreements before the COP concludes at the end of the week.

 

 

Some more news from COP-18… Update 30th November 2012.

CCS CDM: Two sets of negotiating meetings have taken place on the transboundary projects and Global Reserve of CERs issue; the second of these concluded yesterday. Text was agreed that consideration of both is to be postponed until SBSTA-45 (in 2016) to allow time to learn from CCS projects. This text will now go to SBSTA and then CMP for approval. Whilst this isn’t a bad result in itself for the time-being (very few wanted the Global Reserve and there were good arguments against it) it isn’t as good as the initial version proposed by the Chairs which would have removed the Global Reserve permanently, recognising the adequacy provided by the existing modalities and procedures (also described as “providing robust environmental protection” by many here).

Side-events: The UNFCCC Side-event of CCSA/University of Texas/IEAGHG on CCS Education on Tuesday went well, was well attended (the most attendees of any CCS event here so far) and with a high level of interest. IEAGHG presented on the Summer School Series. At the booths, IEAGHG publications have been in high demand and almost exhausted whilst still in the first week. Next week, at a Bellona event on “The necessity of CCS – Looking beyond fossil power” on Monday 3rd Dec (09:30-11:00), IEAGHG will present on the Iron and Steel Industry work.

CCS project survey: Separately, the UNFCCC Secretariat would like to assess the level of interest and potential for CCS CDM projects, and so are undertaking a survey, details and links below, please respond by 28 December if you are interested.

The UNFCCC secretariat is undertaking work to estimate the number of methodological and project registration requests related to CCS CDM project activities that might be submitted in 2013 and beyond. In this regard the secretariat has prepared a survey and kindly requests that you share this survey with your membership so that potential project participants and developers have an opportunity to provide the secretariat with relevant information.

The survey is open until 28 December 2012.

The link to the survey is https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CCS_Survey_PP.

 

 

 

Attention moves from GHGT-11 held in the home of the Kyoto Protocol to Doha in Qatar, where the future of the Kyoto Protocol is to be negotiated.

The UNFCCC’s COP-18 started in Doha yesterday, with several thousand delegates from over 194 countries. CCS was raised in the SBSTA Plenary yesterday, a negotiating group established to discuss transboundary projects and a global reserve of credits, and the IMO were pleased to announce the progress made at the London Convention earlier this month on agreeing guidelines for transboundary CCS activities subsurface (which involved IEAGHG).

Today there will be a UNFCCC Side-event on CCS Education for Developing Countries (more information below), and IEAGHG will present on the Summer School Series, alongside CCSA, the University of Texas, UK Government ,and the Qatar Shell Science and Technology Centre. It will be at 16:45, Room 6 Hall 5. IEAGHG information is also available on the University of Texas booth (98) and IEA booth.

Also in Doha, the COP-18 Reception was held at the Qatar Sustainability Expo. Of interest here were several displays on CCS, including by Shell and the Qatar Carbonate and Carbon Storage Research Centre (with content from IEAGHG). Of note was an interesting car from Saudi Aramco which is their project to capture CO₂ from vehicle exhausts. Fully operational for 2,000km so far, capturing 10% of the CO₂, the plan is to increase this capture rate to 60%.

 

Side event details:

CCS Capacity Building and Global Status: Educational Opportunities and Lessons Learned

Knowledge transfer, training and educational programs serving Qatar, Asia, and North America, and available to other countries, will be presented by policy, educational and technical experts within the framework of recent developments on the role CCS plays in emission reductions.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012, 16:45-18:15

Room: Side Event Room 1

Hosts: The University of Texas at Austin and Carbon Capture and Storage Association

Contact: Hilary Clement Olson ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )

Program:

Welcome

Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin

CCS: Current status and future deployment needs

Carbon Capture and Storage Association

Building CCS workforce capacity through teacher professional development and girl-centered educational programs

STORE Program, The University of Texas at Austin

The CCS Summer School Series: 326 alumni from 49 countries and growing

IEAGHG

CCS collaborative capacity and know-how building at Shell

Qatar Shell Science and Technology Centre

UK Government action on CCS in developing countries

UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Doha

 

The 34^th meeting of the London Convention this week in London had a lot to celebrate. This was its 40^th anniversary of protecting the marine environment, so it held a special evening of speeches and video, attended by many Ambassadors from its 87 member countries.

One of the highlights mentioned was how the London Convention reacted to the threats of climate change and ocean acidification by amending the London Protocol to allow and control CO₂ geological storage for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.

This CCS amendment was adopted in 2006, and ‘CO₂ Specific Guidelines’ were developed on how to permit and undertake such activity whilst ensuring protection of the marine environment. In fact, this CCS amendment and these Guidelines went on to become the basis for OSPAR’s CCS amendment and own guidelines (the convention to protect the North East Atlantic), which themselves formed a significant basis for the EU’s CCS Directive.  So it all started with the London Convention!

IEAGHG has been involved throughout the London Convention’s work on CCS from 2004 to the present day. IEAGHG’s work was used in the extensive work leading up to the 2006 amendment, and used as evidence base in the development of the Guidelines. IEAGHG continued to be involved, participating when the London Convention agreed an amendment to allow export of CO₂ for CCS in 2009, and contributing directly to the subsequent work to revise the Guidelines to cover all transboundary CCS activities (working with the IEA).  On this, there is also reason to celebrate this week as, after three years of work, the revision of the ‘CO₂ Specific Guidelines’ to include subsurface transboundary migration was finally approved and adopted, this being a scenario which is possible now. For export of CO₂ for CCS, while we wait for that amendment to come into force through ratification, further work will look at draft guidance on the permitting arrangements and agreements which will be required between countries.

By coincidence, IEAGHG was to speak in the plenary on the day of the 40^th anniversary celebrations, providing its usual update on IEAGHG work relevant to CCS in the marine environment, in particular from the IEAGHG’s Environmental Assessment Network and Monitoring Network, where great progress is being made particularly in monitoring.

On a personal note, it is reassuring and a pleasure to work in the London Convention with such a body of motivated and professional participants, all their work underpinned by the science from the annual meetings of its Scientific Group, with everyone working hard for the protection of the marine environment. Happy Birthday London Convention!

For more information see  http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/46-london-convention-.aspx

Tim Dixon IEAGHG 2 Nov 2012

 

The attendees of the ‘Environmental Assessment’ Workshop enjoyed a visit to the ZERT site. The site was still ‘live’, with the CO2 release underway. We were shown a range of monitoring. For large area detection of CO2 - laser-based differential absorption LIDAR and eddy covariance, and spectral imaging for plant health; in the subsurface vadose zone a fibre sensor array and the Process-based technique, and at the surface soil gas flux chambers. These monitoring techniques are being developed, tested, and refined using ZERT. Such is the good design and utility of the ZERT facility, we learnt during the workshop that the controlled release projects in Australia and Brazil are also based upon its design. A most interesting visit was had by all, and Montana showed its range of summer weather, ending the visit by bathing everyone in strong Montana sunlight.

 

Tim Dixon 18 July 2012

 

I was privileged to be invited to gain some experience 'in the field' on the annual CO₂ release at the ZERT controlled release site, ahead of our Environmental Impacts workshop being hosted there next week by Montana State University.  ZERT is a facility hosted by the Montana State University under the direction of Lee Spangler, and consists of a 70m horizontal injection well approximatley 2m under the ground in a meadow. This enables a range of monitoring technquies and impact assessment techniques to be tested along its length, from geochemical and geophysical to biological, from subsurface to atmospheric.

On arrival for my first day today, I found the ZERT site is a nice open meadow with mountain views, warm and sunny, with an impressive range of different monitoring techniques in place. The CO₂ injection had started at 6pm on Tuesday, at a rate of 0.15t per day, with intensive background montoring beforehand and then following injection. However, afternoon thunder storms are not uncommon, and yesterday one caused a lightning strike close by. This damaged some of the injection control electronics, so injection had to stop. The team here are hoping for new parts to be delivered within 48 hours.

There is still the injected CO₂ in the ground, being dynamic and dispersing, so there is still lots to measure. After a safety briefing from the Site Manager Laura Dobeck I assisted Katherine Romanak from the University of Texas BEG in testing their 'Process-based' soil gas monitoring, which uses the ratio of different soil gases to determine whether the CO₂ present is biogenic, methane generated, or introduced (ie leak from storage). This kept me busy on regular gas and water sampling at three different wells, and seeing CO₂ in the soil gas (with a gas chromatograph) and in the water in real-time. Most importantly, the soil gas ratios are working out nicely with the CO₂ arrival at the wells to show that it is not biogenic, unlike the CO₂ present before injection. All here are hoping for the injection control to be repaired and working tomorrow, but more thunderstorms are forecast for the next few days.

12 July 2012. Tim Dixon.

 

For more info on ZERT http://www.montana.edu/zert/

UPDATE

Good news. After tenacious work by Laura Dobeck, the CO₂ injection restarted on Sunday evening, just as CO₂ was going back towards baseline levels in many places. So the monitoring programme continues, and just in time for the Environmental Impacts Workshop visit on Tuesday.

Tim Dixon. Tues 17 July.

 

 

The 2011 Impact factors (JCR © Thomson Reuters 2012) have been released and the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control  (IJGGC) has rocketed to 5.111 (4.081 in 2010). This great result is a testament to the untiring dedication of the editors and editorial board who manage and review papers from a wide community.  Congratulations go as well to the hundreds of reviewers who also take time to help authors improve their papers, allowing the journal to publish papers that are of immense benefit to researchers and policy makers. With such dedication to excellent quality, IJGGC has developed into a premier journal for CCS and as publisher for the journal, I am sure that this will continue long into the future!

 

By Clare Lehane, Elsevier

 

 

It’s that time again, when the programme is announced for the forthcoming GHGT-11 conference!

The technical programme committee have worked tirelessly, along with the expert review panel, and the reviews and papers have all now been considered, and allocated their places, either as an oral presentation, a poster presentation, or unfortunately not accepted this time. With the abstracts submitted being the usual high quality, and at an expected high volume, competition for spaces was tight, and the job of the expert reviews and the technical programme committee was a difficult one. But the numbers speak for themselves; in total, 1220 abstracts were submitted for a total of 296 oral presentation spaces, so only the best can be selected. The vast majority of the rest have been offered poster slots, and it is anticipated that the number of poster slots accepted will be around 750. This means that GHGT-11 is shaping up to be a tremendous platform to showcase the latest research and developments, and the state of the art technological developments.

If you would like to see the draft programme, please visit the GHGT-11 website, and you will see the sessions and papers allocated. www.ghgt.info

As you can see from the programme, the conference will bring together the elite of the CCS world, researchers, academia, industry and technology suppliers and potential customers, so if you would like to investigate the possibility of your company being present as a  conference sponsor or supporter, or if you would like to discuss the possibility of taking a booth at the exhibition, please contact Toby Aiken at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and we can discuss the options available to you.

CCS and Earthquakes; not as likely as some may suggest…

Some of you may already be aware of the highly publicised paper from Zoback et al of Stanford University.  The controversial paper links CCS with earthquakes and seismic activity and suggests the risks of CCS outweigh the benefits.

I will take nothing away from Professor Zoback, who is a well respected geoscientist at Stanford University in the USA and he has every right to express his opinion. Further weight is added to the paper by the association to Sally Benson of Stanford University.  Sally is a preeminent geoscientist, well known around the world and one of the lead authors of the IPCC SRCCS. However, this link to a Stanford article on Zoback’s paper (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/carbon-capture-earthquakes-061912.html) includes comments from Sally Benson providing counter comments, suggesting that induced seismicity is an issue to be dealt with by rigorous site selection, but is not a showstopper.

On becoming aware of this paper, IEAGHG were able to raise and debate this at the Joint Network Meeting that was at the time being held in the USA. As you would expect, the paper was a source of hot debate in the network meeting margins. Tim Dixon (IEAGHG) organised a special session at the meeting to discuss the paper. The collected response from the 80 odd participants at the meeting meeting was as follows:

‘The topic of induced seismicity and the Zoback paper was discussed by the international gathering of experts at the IEAGHG Joint Network Meeting, and the majority agreed “Induced seismicity is important to consider for CO₂ geological storage and has already been the subject of extensive research and risk assessment for current CCS projects. There is not sufficient information available to justify the conclusions drawn in the last sentence of the abstract by the paper by Zoback’.

(IEAGHG Joint Network Meeting, Santa Fe, USA, 20 June 2012) "

We are aware that in the USA a National Research Council report was released at the same time, and provides a much more positive, balanced, discussion of the topic. The link to that report is:

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Induced-Seismicity-Potential-Energy-Technologies/13355

Further to this, it has been agreed that the study being undertaken by CO₂CRC on behalf of IEAGHG on Induced Seismicity which is at the draft report stage, will be used by CO₂CRC and GNZ to publish our own comment to the Zoback Paper.  Like the other comments our report does not indicate that induced seismicity is a significant issue.

It should also be noted that there are counter arguments to the Zoback paper, highlighted in other blogs, such as Bruce Hill, Senior Geologist for the Clean Air Task Force.  Also, we are aware that scientists in both the Netherlands and Australia are responding to let’s say the more sensational press article stimulated by the Zoback paper, to bring a more balanced view in the media reports. John Kaldi the Principal Scientist at the CO₂CRC gave the following interview to ABC news in Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/06/19/3527827.htm

So it seems that the broader geoscience community are not in accord with Prof Zoback’s opinion.