Download Presentation (pdf) - International Pipeline Conference 2012

Carbon Capture and
Storage
IPC2: Panel on CO 2 Pipelines
http://www.ico2n.com
September 2010

ICO 2 N: Who We Are
16 leading companies from a variety of industries
TransAlta Corporation
BP
ConocoPhillips Company
Total E&P Canada Ltd.
Imperial Oil Ltd.
Nexen Inc.
Statoil Canada Ltd.
Syncrude Canada Ltd.
Air Products Canada Inc.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.
Devon Energy
Husky Energy Inc.
Keyera
Shell Canada Energy
Suncor Energy Inc.
Enbridge Pipelines
2

ICO 2 N Mandate
The ICO 2
N Group addresses challenges and solutions to how largescale
CCS can be accelerated in Canada
Through policy development work, CCS technical studies, input on the
formation of CCS regulations and stakeholder engagement, ICO 2
N will
provide industry’s guidance to how CCS can be implemented efficiently
during the next decade
Leading CSC technical work, economic analysis and policy
input since 2005
3

Surface Facility Safety Study: Objectives
‣ ICO 2 N recognized an opportunity to undertake a theoretical
assessment of CO 2 hazard issues in advance of CCS project
deployment
‣ Golder Associates was commissioned to evaluate risks associated
with accidental releases of CO 2 from surface facilities
• Model releases based on ICO 2 N conceptual pipeline system in Alberta
• Public risk estimated in terms of hazard distance probabilities
‣ Increase understanding of consequences of release scenarios of
CO 2 as pressurized, non-flammable fluid undergoing rapid phase
change

Release Characteristics
‣ Rapid decay of release rate
‣ Initial release governs hazard distance
Rupture Scenarios

CO 2 Hazard Footprint – D5

Ambient Conditions and Releases
F-1.5 Rupture Maximum Hazard
Distance Radius
Meteorological Stability Class ‐ Wind Speed (m/s)
Trunkline Rupture Scenario
F‐1.5 D‐5 D‐10
Hazard Distance Frequency (km‐yr) 6E‐06 4E‐06 4E‐07
Leak Maximum Hazard
Distance Radius
Maximum arc of ground plume 20%
Trunk Line Leak Scenario
Meteorological Stability Class ‐ Wind Speed (m/s)
F‐1.5 D‐5 D‐10
Hazard Distance Frequency(km‐yr) 3E‐05

Summary and Conclusions
‣ CO 2 transmission systems designed, built and
maintained to existing standards should result in long
term accidental failure frequencies comparable to natural
gas pipeline industry record
‣ Ruptures cause larger hazard zones than leaks
‣ The frequency of leaks is greater than ruptures
‣ Initial release governs hazard distance
‣ Hazard distances increase with pipe diameter
‣ Presence of H 2 S or SO 2 in very small concentrations can
drive hazard distances

Alberta CO 2 Purity Project
‣Q4 2009: Alberta government narrows RFP list to 4 projects
• Includes contribution from Ottawa
• Scheduled to be underway in 2015 timeframe
‣Industry work is underway
• capture design, pipeline design & engineering
• sequestration / EOR opportunities
• this work is not informed by purity standards
‣ Regulatory policy and governance being formed
• Industry needs to provide a common message to regulators and government

Alberta CO 2 Purity Project
Broad range of CCS industry expertise

Project Details
FUNDING
‣ Participation:
• Industry : $ 7,500
• Industry Consortium: $30,000
‣ ~ $250 CAD raised from industry to date
‣ Government funding being actively sought
‣ High leverage on participants’ funding dollars:
• > 25:1 on committed industry funding alone
TIMELINE
‣ August 2010 kickoff
‣ Early work underway
‣ Estimate 15 month duration
Funding in one component
provides access to General
Information from all other
components, participation in
periodic review sessions,
and access to the Final
Report

An Evolution of the CCS Dialogue
Focused years leading to 2015
Early years: 2005 - 2009
Getting CCS on the Agenda
• Internal analysis of CCS deployment
- Technology
- Economics
- Policy
• Basic CCS education and advocacy
• Advocacy on the scale of the potential
reduction
• Size of the initial financial gap facing firstmover
projects
Focusing on CCS Deployment
• Support for 4 Alberta RFP Projects for 2015:
- Specific technical studies
- Policy framing
- Support the regulatory process (Alberta Energy
RFA)
• Scope a broadly defined risk assessment to
address safety and stakeholder concerns
• Focus on long-term, large-scale deployment
- Integrated system approach
Post 2015
CCS Learnings and Next Phases
• Adopt critical learnings from existing projects
• Continued advocacy on broadened incentives for
next phase of projects
• Long-term, large-scale deployment and an
Integrated system approach
12

Alberta’s CCS Projects
Quest Project Project Pioneer Alberta Carbon
Trunk Line
Swan Hills
Synfuels
Project
Lead
Host
Facility
Shell Canada on
behalf of the
Athabasca Oil
Sands Project
Shell Scotford
Oil Sands
Upgrader
Pipeline 12 to 16 inch, 100
km
TransAlta Enhance Energy Swan Hills
Synfuels /
Sagitawah Power
Keephills 3
(new 450 MW
supercritical coal
~8 inch, 20 km &
70 km
Agrium SMRs
(existing)
Northwest
Upgrader
SHS Underground
Coal Gasification
16 inch, 220 km ~ 8 inch, 20 km
Sequestrati
on
CCS
Volume
Estimated
Project
Cost
Deep Saline
Formation;
Potential future
EOR
Deep Saline
Formation;
Potential EOR
$1.35 Billion ~1.1 to 1.2
Billion
EOR;
Potential future
Depleted O&G
fields
~0.70 to 0.75
Billion
EOR
1.2 Mtpa 1.0 Mtpa 1.9 Mtpa 1.3 Mtpa
~0.40 to 0.45
Billion
Sept 2010

14
Synergies with Alberta RFP Projects

Initial Integration Observations
Good Overall Geographic Alignment
• Shell, TransAlta and Enhance pipeline plans can form the initial
stages of an integrated system
• Results in some upsizing, realignment and removes the need
for some infrastructure
Some Design Concerns:
• Enhance pressure regime not consistent
• Volumes in Red Deer area may exceed capabilities
15

ICO 2 N’s Long-term Vision
Alberta CCS Development
Council articulated the need
for infrastructure preplanning:
“safe, orderly, and environmentally
appropriate construction of capture,
transportation and injection facilities”
“initial CO 2
pipelines, where possible,
are designed so they can be
incorporated into an efficient
provincial network”
“must address liability, safety, CCS
governance and pipeline
infrastructure development options
and approaches”
16

Essential Elements of a CCS Network
1. Cost efficient design
• Routing optimized for longer term source/sink matching
• Sizing for future volumes at modest incremental cost
2. Safety is enhanced through minimized infrastructure
• Surface facilities
• Sequestration locations
3. Set the stage for greater stakeholder confidence
4. Multiple CO 2
sources and EOR/storage locations
• Allows for operational efficiency when a capture or storage facility is unavailable
• Allows standardization
5. Minimize environmental footprint
6. Open access / common carrier
• Need to ensure access and fair toll pricing for all shippers
17