Defining CCS Ready: An Approach to An International Definition

Chapter 3: Transport Ready Plant Definitionthat a specific CCS-related regulatory body can integrate all regulatory aspects of CCSReady and CCS in the future, including transport and storage readiness.In addition to regulations, the government also might choose to have a role in financing andconstructing CO 2 pipelines as a means of accelerating their development. Until the economicgap is closed between the cost of CCS and the price of carbon, government participation maybe needed to potentially finance and, possibly, take an equity position in the development oflarger CO 2 pipeline networks. In general, it is expected that the experience of building naturalgas and oil pipeline infrastructure across the world over the past 80 years will provide someguidance for building a CO 2 pipeline network in any jurisdiction.If large volumes of CO 2 are to be stored, a large pipeline network will likely be needed.Coordinated development of CO 2 pipeline networks by interested parties—possibly undergovernment oversight—could have a number of advantages, including: 84• The potential of higher volumes per individual line segment leading to lower per-unitcosts;• Reduced proliferation of pipelines with a lower environmental footprint;• The number of storage sites can be minimized and thus those candidates with the bestgeotechnical quality can be given priority; and• An open-access pipeline can provide fair space allocation to smaller entities, along withmultiple EOR markets and supply points to provide choice and volume security toparticipants.It is feared that operators will be unable to exploit economies of scale due to lack ofcoordination and capital, 85 and smaller pipelines may be built due to short-term commercialpressures. Supplementing such smaller pipelines to meet an increase in the volume ofsequestered CO 2 would result in a higher lifetime system cost. Coordination may thus berequired to facilitate a more optimum initial sizing of the transport infrastructure. A centralinstitution overseeing CO 2 pipeline networks would be beneficial to improve coordinationamong parties.For example, as part of the EU Flagship Programme of 12 European CCS demonstrationplants, the European Technology Plant for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP) hasencouraged a plan for a continental CO 2 transport network. It is thought that regional“mainline” pipelines with a high CO 2 volume capacity will accept a supply from contributorypipelines from a range of EU member states. It is also thought that the basic CO 2 pipelineinfrastructure may mimic the network of natural gas pipelines in Europe today, albeit withfewer subsidiary connections. 8684 Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council. (2009). Accelerating carbon capture and storageimplementation in Alberta (Final Report). Edmonton, Alberta: Author.85 NERA Economic Consulting. (2009). Developing a regulatory framework for CCS transportation infrastructure (vol. 1 of 2)(Report no. URN 09D/596). London, UK: Author.86 Coleman, D.L.. (2009). Transport infrastructure rationale for carbon dioxide capture & storage in the European Union to2050. Energy Procedia, 1, 1673-1681. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.219.23 February 2010 47