FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV

1

DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy (FE)Office of Clean Coal and Carbon
Management

Office of Oil andNatural Gas

National Energy
Strategic Petroleum
Technology
Reserves
Laboratory

PRELIMINARY

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV2 2 2

Carbon Capture
R&D and scale-up technologies for capturing CO2 from new andexisting industrial and power-producing plants

Carbon Storage
Safe, cost- effective, and permanent geologic storage of CO2 ,including beneficial uses
Advanced Energy Systems (AES)
Technologies that improve plant efficiencies, reduce CO2 capture
costs, increase plant availability, and maintain the highest
environmental standards
Cross Cutting ResearchMaterials, sensors, water management, and advanced computer
systems for future power plants and energy systems integrated
with CCSFOSSIL.ENERGY.GOVCO2 Capture

Requires Multiple Technologies and Multiple Scientific andEngineering Disciplines
Technology Areas

Key Technologies

Post–
Combustion
CaptureSolvents

Pre–
Combustion
CaptureOxy–
Combustion
CaptureSorbents

Membranes
Novel/Hybrid
Concepts

This is the primary pathway to steep cost reductions
FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV

DOE’s Carbon Capture Technology Development
Schedule

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV 5

Cost of CO2 Capture$80-100/Tonne~ $60/Tonne

2nd Generation~ 20%
Reduction
in COE

2012

2016

2020

Transformational~ 30%
Reduction
in COE

2025
PRELIMINARY

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV 6

Southern Company Services, Inc.
Kemper Advanced IGCC

Operational feb/mar 2017
Port Arthur Refinery, TX – Air Products
2013

3+ million tons CO2 stored

W.A. Parrish, TX NRG/PetraNova project

Broke Ground Sept. 2014 - On time & budget
for 2016
ADM Agricultural Processing and Biofuels Plant,
Decatur IL

Construction complete – Operational April 2017

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV 7

Petra Nova – NRG W.A. Parish
Advanced Post Combustion CO2 Capture• Thompsons, TX (near Houston)• 240 MWe slipstream at NRG Energy’s W.A.

Parish power plant (originally 60 MWe)• Fuel: PRB sub-bituminous coal
• 90% CO2 capture (KM CDR Process®)
1,400,000 tonnes CO2/year from unit 8 flue gas• EOR: Hilcorp West Ranch oil field• Total Project Cost: ~$1 billion• Project Partners: NRG, JX Nippon, DOE

Fantastic example of a successful
collaboration between the US and Japan
leading to a viable CCUS operation atcommercial scale.
FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOVPerformer

Project Focus

Scale
Post-Combustion Solvents 2nd Gen

Linde, LLC

Slipstream Novel Amine-Based Post-Combustion Process

1 MWe

Neumann Systems Group, Inc

Carbon Absorber Retrofit Equipment

0.5 MWe

University of Kentucky

Slipstream Demonstration Using the Hitachi Advanced Solvent

0.7 MWe

General Electric

Novel Aminosilicone Solvent

0.5 MWe

ION Engineering

Amine Solvent in Ionic Liquid

0.7 MWe

Post-Combustion Sorbents 2nd Gen
ADA-Environmental Solutions

Solid Sorbents as Retrofit Technology

1 MWe

TDA Research, Inc.

Alkalized Alumina Solid Sorbent

0.5 MWeSRI International

Novel Solid Sorbent

0.5 MWe

Post-Combustion Membranes 2nd Gen
Membrane Technology & Research

Polymeric Membranes

0.6 MWe

Gas Technology Institute

Hollow-Fiber-Membrane Contactor with aMDEA Solvent

0.5 MWe

Post-Combustion Novel Concepts - Transformational
FuelCell Energy, Inc.

Electrochemical Membrane

3 MWe

Air Liquide

Cold Membrane

0.3MWe
Pre-Combustion - Transformational

SRI International

CO2 Capture Using AC-ABC Process

0.1 MWe

TDA, Inc.

High Capacity Regenerable Sorbent

0.1 MWe

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV 2nd gen Large Scale Pilots by 2020 for Coal Plant
 Accelerate Transformational Technology Development
 Industrial applications for carbon capture

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV Fossil Energy R&D Program supporting projects coupling CO2

storage with Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Small R&D program focused on CO2 conversion• Mineralization, Chemicals Production, Biological capture (algae)

 FY15 Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) – “Lab- andBench-Scale technologies - $6.5M

 Enacted FY16 budget includes $10M for CO2 utilization additional

to EOR

Project Highlight: Skyonic• Operational as of October 2014
• Capturing 75,000 metric tons per year
• Converting CO2 into useful, saleable products• Received $28 million in ARRA funding

Skyonic Carbon Capture Unit

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV Initiated in 1997
 Carbon Storage Program’s primary goal is todemonstrate the technical viability ofgeologic carbon storage as an effective
solution for mitigating carbon emissions.
 The primary objective is to develop andadvance the effectiveness of onshore andoffshore storage technologies, reduce thechallenges to their implementation, andprepare them for widespread commercial
deployment in the 2025–2035 timeframe.

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOVDevelopment of technologies aimed to…
 improve wellbore integrity
 increase reservoir storage efficiency
 improve management of reservoir pressure and fluids ensure storage permanence quantitatively assess risks
 identify and mitigate potential release of CO2 in all types ofstorage formations

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOVKey R&D Pathways
 Wellbore leakage assessment and detection
 Mitigation technologies for wells and natural pathways
 Fluid flow, reservoir pressure, and water management
 Geochemical effects on formation, brine, and microbialcommunities
 Geomechanical impacts on reservoirs- seals and basin-scale
coupled models, and microseismic monitoring

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV

Lawrence Livermore National
LaboratoryMicroseismic Toolset for Fault
Detection and Seismicity Mitigation -







A Coupled Geomechanical, Acoustic, Transport,
and Sorption Study of Caprock Integrity in CO2
Sequestration - Colorado School of Mines

Development and implementation of newmodeling algorithms: Reduced Order Models,Statistical Learning Based Models, Invasion
Percolation, Constrained Optimization andothers
Improved simulators to model coupledprocesses (flow, mechanicaldeformation/failure, geochemistry) incomplex, fractured reservoirs and caprock
Use of super-computing to improveunderstanding of errors in simulations
resulting from upscaling geologic models
New signal processing algorithms to extract
information on faults from natural seismic
signals
New laboratory measurements ofgeomechanical properties and coupledprocesses in reservoir, caprock and faults
Next-generation materials and methods for
mitigating wellbore leakage: biomineralization, pH-triggered polymers, nanocomposites,
mesoporous nanoparticles

A modeling-based workflow for evaluatinggeomechanical effects associated with CO2 injection–
University of Texas, Austin

Programmable sealant-loaded mesoporous nanoparticles for
gas/liquid leakage mitigation - C-Crete Technologies, LLC

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV15

Key R&D Pathways
 Atmospheric Monitoring and remote sensing
technologies
 Near-Surface Monitoring of soils and vadose zone
 Subsurface Monitoring in and near injection zone,
and above seal(s).
 Intelligent Monitoring Systems for field management

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV
Deep, Controlled Source Electro-Magnetic
Sensing: A Cost Effective, Long-term Tool for
Sequestration Monitoring – Multi-Phase
Technologies







Distributed Fiber Optic Arrays: Integrated
Temperature and Seismic Sensing for
Detection of CO2 Flow, Leakage andSubsurface Distribution - Electric Power
Research InstituteSuccessful performance field testing ofDistributed Acoustic Sensor (DAS) arrays invertical seismic profiling (VSP) and crosswellseismic survey configurations
A new seismic method (scalable, automated,semi-permanent seismic array) for tracking theCO2 plume
Initial field validation testing of a hydrologic
pulse testing technology for leakage detection
Initial field testing of a controlled source
electromagnetic (CSEM) system incorporating aborehole source for monitoring changes inelectrical properties of CO2 reservoirs
Measuring and interpreting the in situ strain
tensor during CO2 injection
Intelligent systems software frameworks formonitoring, controlling, and optimizing CO2
injection operation
Time reversal methods for the detection andmonitoring of CO2/brine leakage pathways inwellbore systems

Intelligent monitoring system for real-time
geologic storage, optimization, and reservoir
management– Archer Daniels Midland

SASSA for Detecting CO2 Plume Extent
During Geological CO2 Injection – Univ. ofNorth Dakota

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV17

National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP)
NRAP is developing toolsets to reduce uncertainty andquantify potential impacts related to release of CO2 andinduced seismicity.
Technical Team

Stakeholder Group

Wade,
LLC

www.edx.netl.doe.gov/nrap
FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOVNRAP Method

IAM

Data

NRAP Integrated Assessment(System) Models

A. Divide system
intodiscretecomponents B. Develop
detailed
component
models that are
validatedagainst lab/field
data

Potential
Receptors
orImpactedMedia

ReleaseandTransport

C. Develop
reduced-order D. Link ROMs
via
models (ROMs)
Storage
integrated
that rapidly
Reservoirassessment
reproduce
models
E. Exercise whole systemcomponent(IAMs) tomodel to explore risk
model
predict
performance
predictions
systemperformance
PRELIMINARY

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV 19

Integrated Assessment Model – Carbon
Storage (NRAP-IAM-CS)

Natural Seal ROM (NSealR)•Simulates long-term full system behavior (reservoir to aquifer/atmosphere)

Aquifer Impact Model (AIM)•Generates risk profiles (time-lapse probability of leakage and GW impact)•Estimates storage permanence quantitatively amidst system uncertainty•Identifies key drivers of risk amidst system uncertainty

Reservoir Evaluation and Visualization (REV)
Tool•Generates pressure and CO2 plumes sizes over time
•Suitable for Area of Review (AoR) determination•Visualizes reservoir behavior probabilisticallyWellbore Leakage Analysis Tool (WLAT)•Evaluates existing wells for leakage potential•Explores leakage response as a function of well disposition•Evaluates the implications of permeable overburden zones•Estimates flux through a fractured or perforated seal
•Accounts for storage outside of primary target zone

•Rapid estimation of aquifer volume impacted by a leak
•Distinguishes between impact of CO2 and brine leaks•Used to determine impact of threshold criteria.

Design for Risk Evaluation and Monitoring(DREAM)•Estimates time to detection for a monitoring system•Evaluates and select optimal monitoring designs

Short Term Seismic Forecasting (STSF)•Forecasts seismic event frequency over the short term
•Potential to complement stoplight approach for induced seismicity planning andpermitting

IJGGC Virtual Special
Issue (August, 2016)

NRAP Beta Tool Training
Materials available at,https://edx.netl.doe.gov/nrap

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV To evaluate risk at specific carbon storage sites.
 To estimate costs of long-term liability and increase

investor confidence

 To safely store CO2 by using improved science to aid indesign and application of monitoring and mitigation
strategies.

 To monitor for seismic activities and the potential forleakage fluid

PRELIMINARY

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV 21

Seven Regional Partnerships
400+ distinct organizations, 43 states, 4 Canadian Provinces
Characterization Phase (2003-2005)
PCOR

BIG SKY

Search of potential storage
locations and CO2 sources

WESTCARBMGSCFound potential for 100s ofyears of storage

MRCSP

SWP
SECARB

Validation Phase (2005-2011)
20 injection tests in saline formations, depleted oil, unmineablecoal seams, and basalt• Engage regional, state, and local governments• Determine regional sequestration benefits• Baseline region for sources and sinks• Establish monitoring and verification protocols• Validate sequestration technology andinfrastructure

Development Phase (2008-2018+)
8 large scale injections (over1 million tons each)Commercial scale
understanding and validation

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV
22

RCSP

CO2 Injection/Test Complete
Small-Scale CO2 Injection Sites (added
July 2011)Type

BIG SKY

SALINEMGSC
Midwest GeologicalSequestration Consortium

OIL-BEARING

10

12
11

PCOR

BSCSP

9

MRCSP

MGSC
5
17
20

3

SALINE

Columbia Basin

1

5

19

2

8

3

2-a

4

18

Completed 18 Injections
Over 1.35 Metric Tons Injected

14

15

2-b
16

13

SALINEPCOR
The Plains CO2 Reduction
Partnership

OIL-BEARINGSECARB
Southeast Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership

7

6

1

SWP

MRCSP
Midwest Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership

SECARB

SWP
Southwest Regional
Partnership on Carbon
Sequestration
WESTCARB
West Coast Regional
Carbon Sequestration
Partnership

7

10

8

Illinois Basin

4

COAL SEAM

1

WESTCARB

2

Province

6

Cincinnati Arch,
Michigan Basin,
Appalachian Basin

9

Keg River, Duperow,
Williston Basin

11

COAL SEAM

12

OIL-BEARING 13
SALINE

14

COAL SEAM

15

16

OIL-BEARING
17

18

COAL SEAMSALINE

19

Gulf Coast,
Mississippi Salt
Basin, Central
Appalachian, Black
Warrior Basin
Paradox Basin, Aneth
Field, Permian Basin,
San Juan Basin
Colorado Plateau

20

Other Small Scale Injections

University of Kansas

OIL-BEARING& SALINE

Virginia Tech

COAL SEAM

2-a

ORGANIC
SHALE

2-b

1

Sedgwick Basin
Appalachian Basin;
Sourwood or
Oakwood CBM fields

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV23

RCSP Development Phase Large-Scale Field Projects>10 million metric tons stored.

Big Sky Carbon
Sequestration Partnership

Midwest Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership

Kevin Dome Project

Michigan Basin Project

628,882 metric tons
(injection on-going)

Injection canceled

Plains CO2 Reduction
Partnership
Midwest GeologicalSequestration Consortium

Bell Creek Field Project

2,982,000 metric tons
(injection complete)

Illinois Basin Decatur Project

1,000,000 metric tons
(injection complete)
Southwest Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership
Farnsworth Unit – Ochiltree Project

505,494 metric tons
(Injection on-going)

Southeast Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership
Cranfield Project

4,743,898 metric tons
(injection complete)
Injection volumes as of December 2016

Southeast Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership
Citronelle Project

114,104 metric tons
(injection complete)

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV Demonstrated large-scale injectivity and available capacity inregionally important storage formations.
 Provided examples of simulation models and MVA technologies thatcan reasonably predict CO2 movement and confirm confining system
integrity.
 Contributing toward developing and evaluating innovative storage
technologies for a cost-effective commercial toolbox.
 Developed and implemented risk management strategies.
 Demonstrated the benefits of early engagement with local
communities and stakeholders.
FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV
25

 Injection-induced seismicity is very hard to predict• World-class microseimic dataset in Illinois

 Reservoir heterogeneity greatly affects CO2 movement• Internal reservoir baffles are hard to model 3D imaging of injected CO2 has resolution challenges• Need improvements in plume detection• Integration of monitoring technologies required Early communications with public & regulators is a must
 Many depositional environments yet to test

• Each geology presents unique challenges and opportunities

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV26

Best Practices Manual

Version 1(Phase II)

Version 2(Phase III)

Final Guidelines(Post Injection)

Monitoring, Verification andAccounting (MVA) for Geologic
Storage Projects

2009/2012

2017

2020

Public Outreach and Education
for Geologic Storage Projects

2009

2017

2020

Site Screening, Selection, andCharacterization for Geologic
Storage Projects

2013

2017

2020

Risk Analysis and Simulation for
Geologic Storage of CO2

2010

2017

2020

Operations for Geologic Storage
Projects

-

2017

2020

http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/publications
FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV27

Fit for Purpose Projects
Brine Extraction Storage Test (BEST) Developing approaches to manage reservoir pressure to
improve reservoir storage efficiency while ensuringcontainment effectiveness and reducing the risk of induced
seismicity.
Offshore Storage Resource Assessment
 Prospective Storage Resource for East Coast and/or Gulf of
Mexico Depleted Oil and Natural Gas Reservoirs
and Saline Formations.
Unconventional EOR and Associated Storage Residual Oil Zones (ROZ)
 EOR from tight oil formations (organic-rich shale)

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV CarbonSAFE’s aim is to develop integrated CO2 storage complexes withstorage capacity greater than 50 million metric tons that arecharacterized, constructed, and permitted for operation.
 Will be implemented as a phased approach, concluding around 2025.
• Phase I – Pre-Feasibility• Phase II – Storage Complex Feasibility• Phase III – Site Characterization• Phase IV – Permitting and Construction
 In November we selected 16 carbon storage projects selected; initialfunding of $29 million.
 Down selection approach but competitive through each phase.
 We expected to award 1-3 Phase III projects depending on funding
availability.
FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV
29

CarbonCaptureCarbonStorage2017
Large Capture
Pilots Initiated2020
R&D Completed for Carbon Capture
2nd Generation Technologies

2035
Advanced technologies
available for broadcommercial-scale
deployment

2025
Integrated CCS
Projects initiated

2022
2017
Commercial-scale
Initiate Storage
storage complexes
Feasibility forcharacterized
Integrated CCS

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV
30

CCUS Technology Development
and Market Mechanisms
Market Pull

Technology Push

• R&D
• Demos (integration andlearning)

Domestic Oil Supplies and CO2 Demand (Storage) Volumes from
“Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology**







Existing Market Mechanisms: Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR)
Financing (Tax Credits and Loan
Guarantees)
Regulatory Framework (Evolving)
FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOVRegulatory framework in place
 EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program: Responsible forprotection of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs)••

Class II – EOR
Class VI – CO2 for Geologic Storage

 EPA Clean Power Plan – Clean Air Act Sections 111(b) and 111(d) Proposed
Rules
 EPA GHG Reporting Rule: Requires reporting of GHG emissions fromsources (FINAL)•••

Subpart RR – CO2 Geologic Storage
Subpart UU – EOR
Geologic Storage R&D projects granted an exemption from subpart RR but
subject to subpart UU reporting

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV

Need to improve the fidelity of technologies to better characterize reservoir
heterogeneity.

• Leads to improved capability to predict and monitor CO2 plume and brine pressure front movement,
stabilization, and impacts.



Need to validate risk-assessment tools an methods• Leads to the capability to develop strategies and protocol for managing and mitigation risks at a particular
site.



Need MVA technologies that can better quantify CO2 saturation in the far field, away fromwellbores.
• Leads to improved conformance verification.



Need to better understand the relationship between induced microseismicity and themigration of pressure and fluid, as well as the risk of inducing larger (felt) seismic events.
• Leads to the capability to forecast risk levels as a system to avoid induced seismicity.



Need intelligent monitoring systems for real-time operating solutions.
• Leads to the capability to optimize CO2 storage capacity.

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOVGlobal Collaborations

Leveraging International Geologic Storage R&D Projects

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV U.S remains committed to MI
 A Technical Mission Innovation CCUS workshop isplanned for mid-2017

 Co-lead by the United States and Saudi Arabia
 Will convene top experts to discuss breakthroughopportunities and find international RD&D synergies incarbon capture, storage, and CO2 utilization
PRELIMINARY

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV 35

Knowledge Sharing Products• Annual Carbon Storage Meeting• RCSP Working Groups• Domestic Collaborations• International Collaborations• Technical Workshops

Worldwide CCS Project Database

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOVThank you !

FOSSIL.ENERGY.GOV
6