Dixon CCS Pros and Cons for Oceans 10 Nov v2 - IEAGHG

Large Scale Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) – Pros and Cons

for the Oceans

Tim Dixon, IEAGHG10th November 2016

UK PavilionCOP-22, Marrakech

What is CCS?

Source: DNV

IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report

IPCC Fifth Assessment ReportSynthesis Report

2nd November 2014Copenhagen


AR5 SYR SPM


Sources of emissionsEnergy production remains the primary driver of GHG emissions

35%24% 21% 14% 6.4%

2010 GHG emissions

Energy Sector

Agriculture, forests and

other land usesIndustry Transport

Building Sector

AR5 WGIII SPM


Mitigation Measures

More efficient use of energy

Greater use of low-carbon and no-carbon energy• Many of these technologies exist today

Improved carbon sinks• Reduced deforestation and improved forest management

and planting of new forests • Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage

Lifestyle and behavioural changesAR5 WGIII SPM

IPCC AR5 – Role of different low-carbon energy technologies

IPCC AR5 SYR from Table 3.2 (2014)

© OECD/IEA 2016

Contribution of technology area and sector to global cumulative CO2 reductions

Actions need to be pursued by stakeholders in all sectors to achieve an optimal transition strategy.

The momentum from COP21 needs to be accelerated to reach 2DS ambitionsThe momentum from COP21 needs to be accelerated to reach 2DS ambitions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2013 2020 2030 2040 2050

6DS to 2DS

End‐use efficiency 38%

End‐use fuel switching 10%

Renewables 32%

Power generation efficiencyand fuel switching 1%

6DS

2DS

CCS 12%

Nuclear 7%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Power

Industry

Transport

Buildings

Transformation

GtCO2

Renewables

CCS

Fuel switching

Energy efficiency

Nuclear

GtC

O2

Power sector challenge

0

5

10

15

20

25

2013 2020 2030 2040 2050

GtCO2

6DS

2DS

Cumulative CO2 reductions

Source: IEA ETP2016

Electricity generation needs to be almost completely decarbonised in the 2DS, from a CO2 intensity of around 530 g/kWh today to less than 40 g/kWh by 2050.

© OECD/IEA 2013

IEA vision: 120 Gt of CO2 stored by 2050

Goal 1: 2020Over 30 large projects in

operation in power and across a range of industrial processes, storing 50 MtCO2 per year.

Goal 3: 2050Over 7 GtCO2 stored per year.

CCS routinely used in all applicable power and industrial

applications.

Goal 2: 2030Over 2 GtCO2 is stored per year. CCS routinely used in power and certain industrial applications.

• ‘Climate Action Now’ UNFCCC - 18 Nov 2015

• High level summary of policy actions with high mitigation potential at 2020

• Builds on Technical Expert Meetings (TEMs)

• Includes CCUS as one of the six priority areas

• Significance of Boundary Dam CCUS project

• Solutions through international cooperation - IEAGHG

Global CCS Update

Very Active region

Active region

R&D/Pilots

Active region

Developing Interest

The global offshore continental shelves present many advantages for near-term storage at large-scale.

London Convention and Protocol

• Marine Treaty - Global agreement regulating disposal of wastes and other matter at sea. London Convention 1972 (87 countries). London Protocol 1996 – ratified March 2006 (47 countries as of April 2016)

• Annual Meeting of the Contracted Parties. Annual meeting of Scientific Group.

• How it works:• Prohibition on dumping of all wastes, except for those listed in Annex 1,

which need to be permitted meeting certain requirements described in Annex 2.

• Annex 1: dredged material; sewage sludge; fish waste; vessels and platforms; inert, inorganic geological material; organic material of natural origin; bulky items primarily comprising unharmful materials, from small islands with no access to waste disposal options, and Carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration (must consist overwhelmingly of CO2)

London Convention and Protocol and CCS

• Originally prohibited some CCS project configurations

• CO2 Geological Storage Assessed by LC Scientific Group 2005/6 • 2006 - Risk Assessment Framework for CO2

• To allow prohibited CCS configurations – an amendment to allow disposal in geological formations was proposed and adopted at 28th LC Meeting (LP1), 2 Nov 2006 - came into force 10 Feb 2007

• CO2 Specific Guidelines (2007/2012) developed to provide Annex 2 requirements

Simulated and observed marine pH ranges till 2100

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

190 ppm 280 ppm 370 ppm 500 ppm 700 ppm 1000 ppm

Glacial Pre-ind Now 2050 2100 2100 worstcase

pH

pH range for the last 20 million years

PML 2005

CO2 Specific Guidelines

o Waste prevention audit / Waste management optionso Chemical and physical properties (of CO2 stream)o Action list (substances not allowed in CO2 stream)o Site selection and characterisation

• Characterization of the sub-seabed geological formation• Characterization of the marine area• Evaluation of potential exposure

o Assessment of potential effects• Evaluation of potential effects• Risk assessment• Impact hypothesis

o Monitoring and risk management• Monitoring and risk management• Mitigation or remediation plan

o Permit and permit conditions

• Around 56 requirements - generally qualitative rather than quantitative in nature:

OSPAR• Marine Convention for NE Atlantic, 1992 • 15 nations and EC• Prohibited some CCS configurations• Considered CCS and CO2 impacts• To allow prohibited CCS configurations:• Amendments (to Annexes II and III) for CO2

storage adopted June 2007• Needed ratification by 7 Parties (8 ratified as

of Oct 2011)• Amendments came into force July 2011

• OSPAR Decision – requirement to use Guidelines when permitting, including risk assessment and management process

• OSPAR Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management of Storageof CO2 in Geological Formations – includes the Framework for Risk Assessment and Management (FRAM)

• OSPAR Decision to prohibit ocean storage

Monitoring strategies

How do we monitor sites 250 ‐ 22500 km2 in area, with ocean volume of 25 ‐ 2500 km3, with potentially known and unknown point and dispersed seep sources?

• Baseline monitoring;• Seafloor / ocean leakage detection;• Quantification of CO2 leakage.

Point source, high discharge dispersed, low discharge leakage

Courtesy I.Wright, NOC

Seafloor detection -1Significant opportunities for CCS monitoring:1. Probable that pre-cursory fluids will

be emitted at the seafloor before CO2 due to buoyancy pressure of CO2 displacing stratigraphicallyhigher fluids.

2. Seafloor, and lesser extent the overlying ocean, provide a site for more direct and quantitatively explicit measurement of CO2 flux (both as free gas and dissolved phases) that is potentially more sensitive for measurement and verification of CO2 leakage.

Seafloor – more tractable boundary to solve flux problem


Deployment platforms – seafloor landers and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV’s)

seasonal sea-ice cover

Periodic acoustic modem interrogation and download

acoustic modem & surface buoy release

2010

‐ 6000 m depth‐ 6000 km range‐ 6 month duration

Oct 2010

Sept 2011


Release experiment: concept

Allow observations of flow in real sediment environmentAccount for tidally driven mixing of the water columnEnable full scale testing of monitoring techniques Courtesy J.Blackford, PML

Site location & observational strategy

Zone 1: 10m

Zone 2: 25m

Zone 3: 75m

Land site

Pre‐release Injection RecoveryMay SeptD‐6/‐7 D13/14 D34/35 R17/18 R89/90R5/6

Zone 4: 450m

ECO2

• EU project to establish a framework of best environmental practices to guide the management of offshore CO2 injection and storage

• 2011-2015. 27 partners (including Statoil). Led by GeomarObjectives:• To investigate the likelihood of leakage from sub-seabed storage • To study the potential effects of leakage on benthic organisms and

marine ecosystems• To assess the risks of sub-seabed CO2 storage• To develop a comprehensive monitoring strategy using cutting-edge

monitoring techniques• To define guidelines for the best environmental practices in

implementation and management of sub-seabed storage sites

• IEAGHG on Stakeholder Dialogue Board

Study Areas

Storage sites

NaturalCO2 seeps

CO2 release experiment at the seabed close to Sleipner

• CO2 gas bubbles are completely dissolved within a few m above seafloor• No significant CO2 release into the atmosphere

Numerical simulation of CO2 gas dissolution at Salt Dome Juist

Environmental impacts: CO2 release

Numerical simulation of pCO2 dispersion (upper panel) and pH reduction (lower panel) during the experiment (CO2 release rate 130 kg/d)

Environmental impacts: CO2 release experiment

North [m

]

East [m]

• Significant increase in CO2 (aq.)is limited to bottom waters

• Size of affected area dependson tidal current regime(diameter up to 20 m at slackwater, only a few meter at highbottom current velocity)

• Biological impacts are limitedto small region around therelease site

Ocean Fertilisation and other Geo-engineering in the London Convention and Protocol

• Ocean fertilization: any activity with the intention of stimulating primary productivity. Does not include conventional aquaculture.

• Eg the intentional introduction of nutrients such as iron to the ocean to stimulate phytoplankton. Iron is often the limiting nutrient for their growth. Phytoplankton growth results in increased CO2 removal from the atmosphere for their photosynthesis.

• Geo-engineering: Marine geo-engineering means a deliberate intervention in the marine environment with the purpose of manipulating natural processes, including to counteract anthropogenic climate change and/or its impacts, and that has the potential for widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.


• 2007. Consideration by the LC Scientific Group – statement of concern “knowledge about the effectiveness and potential environmental impacts ……..was insufficient to justify large-scale operations”

• 2008 Ocean Fertilisation Resolution “given the present state of knowledge, ocean fertilization activities other than legitimate scientific research should not be allowed”

• 2010. Developed an ‘Assessment Framework’ (2010) under which scientific research could be permitted

• 2012. “The Parties… express grave concern regarding the deliberate ocean fertilization activity that was recently reported to have been carried out in July of 2012 in waters off the Canadian west coast. This activity, ….. involved the deliberate introduction into surface waters of 100 metric tonnes of iron sulfate. The Parties recognize the actions of the Government of Canada in investigating this incident.”

• 2012. Considered expanding to regulation of all marine geo-engineering activities


• 2013. Proposal adopted to add Article 6bis to prohibit marine geoengineering unless listed in Annex 4 and permitted using generic Assessment Framework (to prevent pollution or reduce to a minimum).

• Annex 4 lists one activity – Ocean Fertilization• Only for research purposes. • Requires permit which uses Ocean Fertilization Assessment Framework

• Allows for the addition of other marine geoengineering activities in the future. Which will need specific assessment frameworks.

• Provides for a global, transparent and effective regulatory and control mechanism for marine geoengineering activities which have potential to cause harm to the marine environment.

Conclusions

• To ensure protection of marine environment whilst addressing CO2 emissions, CCS using offshore geological storage needs:• regulations and permitting

o environmental impact assessmentso risk assessments o monitoring

References• QICS https://www.bgs.ac.uk/qics/• RISCS http://www.riscs-co2.eu/• ECO2 http://www.eco2-project.eu/• STEMM-CCS http://www.stemm-ccs.eu/ - new EU project

• Jones et al “Developments since 2005 in understanding potential environmental impacts of CO2 leakage from geological storage”, Elsevier IJGGC 40 (2015) 350–377

• IEAGHG, “International Workshop on Offshore Geological CO2 Storage 2016-TR2• IEAGHG, “Offshore Monitoring for CCS Projects”, Report 2015/02• IEAGHG, “A Summary Report of the Risk Management and Environmental Research

Networks Combined Meeting” 2016-08 • IEAGHG, “Building Knowledge for Environmental Assessment of CO2 Storage” 2013-02• IEAGHG, “Monitoring Network and Environmental Research Network – Combined Meeting

Report” 2013-15

Large Scale Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) – Pros

and Cons for the Oceans

Thank you.

Documents

Dixon CCS Pros and Cons for Oceans 10 Nov v2 - IEAGHG