Japan CCS Forum Technical Seminar

Quantitative Comparison of CCS Value Chainwith LCO2 three modes (LP/MP/EP)
Takahiro Rokuroda

General Manager,
Green Business Group &Fuel Solution Group, NYK Line

Atsushi Tamagawa

General Manager,
Gas & LNG Process Engineering Department,
Chiyoda Corporation

March 4, 2024
© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer
 CAPEX/OPEX/any other cost information are indications
provided by potential suppliers and/or based on inhouse datethrough previous studies.
 The information provided does not impose any legal
commitment nor obligation on Chiyoda/NYK/KNCC or any of its
affiliates in any respect.

1© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

Agenda1. Background
2. Basis of Study
3. System Description in CCS Value chain
4-1. Quantitative Comparison for Domestic Case
4-2. Quantitative Comparison for Overseas Case
5. Outstanding Actions for Social Implementation
6. Summary

2© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

1. Background
Scope:CCS value chain with large scale transport by liquefied CO2 (LCO2)CO2 Emission
sourceCaptureLiquefaction

Storage &LoadingMarine
Transportation

Unloading/
Storage/Heating/Boosting

Injection

Purpose:Verify the feasibility of 3 modes (LP/MP/EP) in CCS Value chain
by investigating the Pros/Cons of each mode in each system andcomprehensive evaluation of their suitability in CCS Value chain
Evaluation Items:

 CAPEX/OPEX relative comparison for each facility Outstanding Actions for Social Implementation

3© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

2. Basis of Study Post Combution CO2 capture by chemical solvent (no differences among 3 modes)
 Liquefaction Capacity : 2MTPA CO2 recovery and liquefaction
 Liquefaction Technology : Propane Refrigerant Cycle LCO2 Transport (Capacity, Loading/Unloading Port) :Japan Domestic : 20,000 m3, Osaka to Hokkaido (1,550 km)
Oversea: 40,000 m3 and 50,000 m3, Japan to Australia (5,600 km)
 CO2 delivery conditions at well head : 10 MPaG, 20degC
No diff. in 3 modes
CO2 Emission
sourceCaptureQuantitative Comparison by 3 modes
Liquefaction

Storage &Loading

MarineTransportation

No diff. in 3 modes
Unloading/
Storage/Heating/Boosting

Injection

4© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.2. Basis of Study
Study Case
MPLPEP

Medium Pressure

Low Pressure

Elevated Pressure

CO2 Capacity

2 MTPA

2 MTPA

2 MTPA

LCO2 ProductConditions

1.3 MPaG/-30°C

0.6 MPaG/-50°C

3.4 MPaG/0°C

LCO2 density

1,000 kg/m3

1,150 kg/m3

930 kg/m3

Study Case

Domestic

Overseas(*2)

Domestic

Overseas

Domestic(*3)

Overseas(*4)

LCO2 onshore
storage capacity(*1)

22,000 m3-

22,000 m3

44,000 m3

24,200 m355,000 m3

LCO2 carrier
capacity

20,000 m3-

20,000 m3

40,000 m3

22,000 m3

50,000 m32-

2323Number of shippingvessels(*1): 10% margin by LCO2 carrier capacity(*2): Exclude Overseas case considering low feasibility of oversea transportation by MP carrier(*3): 110% capacity of volume than MP/LP considering mass density gap between MP and EP(*4): 125% capacity of volume than LP considering mass density gap between LP and EP

5© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

2. Basis of Study
Basis of Unit Cost
The cost is shown in Unit Cost [USD/t-CO₂] calculated by dividing the total cost with the annual volume of CO₂.

Unit Cost =(CAPEX or OPEX)
Annual CO 2 tons

Basis of Onshore CAPEX for Liquefaction, Storage & Loading and Receiving Terminal
CAPEX = Equipment Cost (incl. Material cost) + Construction Cost (AACE Class 5)

Basis of Onshore OPEX for Liquefaction, Storage & Loading and Receiving Terminal
OPEX = Electricity cost (0.17 USD/kWh)(Compressor, Pump, Cooling tower, Electrical Heater etc.)(excluding other utility since there is no difference among 3 modes)

6© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

2. Basis of Study
Basis of CAPEX/OPEX for Marine Transportation
CAPEX(Fixed cost)

OPEX(Semi-fixedcost)

Vessel Price

Vessel price

Crew expense

labor costs of crews on board (number of crews depends on the size & operation of vessel)

Vessel stores

cost of equipment and supplies to maintain vessel quality

Lubrication

cost of lubricating oil for vessels' main engines and generators

Dock costreserve for regular repair (twice in every five years)

H&M insurancephysical damage protection for the vessels.

P&I insurance

covers ship owner’s third-party risks for damage caused to cargo during carriage and risks ofenvironmental damage such as oil spills and pollution.

Ship management

ship management commissioning fees

Port costfees charged when vessel calls ports. Incl. harbor dues/agency fees, assisting tugs, pilotages etc.

Fuel cost

Dual Fuel basis (LNG and MGO) in this case

Vessel Conditions:• LNG/MGO dual fueled new built vessel• Fuel Price: LNG 900 USD/MT、MGO 700 USD/MT• Sailing Speed: adjusted to most optimal speed between 11.5 – 14 knots• Port Cost: 30,000 – 50,000 USD/Call subject to to vessel size
• Others: Reasonable allowance (bad weather, delay,etc) is taken into consideration.

7© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

2. Basis of Study Vessel dimension
Vessel Type

Tank Volume (m3)Loa (m)Beam (m)draft(m)LP / Type C

20,000180279.5

MP / Type C

20,000

188

28

9.3

EP / CTC

22,000

190

30

9.5

LP / Type C

40,000

230

35.3

11.4

EP / CTC

50,000

265

42.6

11.4

20 000 m3

Domestic
Transportation

Overseas
Transportation

50 000 m38© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

3. System Description in CCS Value chain
Liquefaction

MPLCO2

Operatingpressure:
20 barA

Cold Duty
RecoveryCompression/Dehydration
BoosterPump

PropaneRefrigerantCycle

Same Configuration

EnergyConsumption:
LP > MP > EPEP
LCO2
To the Cold Duty
Recovery heatexchanger

LP
LCO2
End Flash
Drum

Same Configuration + Supplemental
Equipment for LCO2 P/T Adjustment
9© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

3. System Description in CCS Value chain❷ Re-liquefaction System:

Storage & Loading

Energy Consumption:
LP > MP > EP

From Ship
To Ship

Large Sphere

CTC❶ Tank types: (LP/MP/EP)
LCO2 Loading Pump

10

© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

3. System Description in CCS Value chain
To Ship

Receiving Terminal❸

Re-liquefaction System:
Energy Consumption:
LP > MP > EP

From Ship❷

Boosting and Heating:
Energy Consumption:
LP > MP > EP

Large Sphere

CTC❶ Tank types: (LP/MP/EP)

Pump 2HeaterTo Injection(10 MPaG/20°C)

Pump 1

11© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

4-1. Quantitative Comparison for Domestic CaseCAPEX Comparison
Storage &Loading

Liquefaction

•••

MP

4.1

LP

4.3

1.0

EP

4.0

1.3

120JPY/USD
Indication only
CAPEX : excluding financing and miscellaneous cost

MarineTransportation

2.1

Unloading/
Storage/Heating/
Boosting

5.5

6.3

5.5

13.7 USD/CO ton

2.1

1.0

1.3

2-8%

12.7 USD/CO ton
2-13%

12.0 USD/CO ton
212© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

4-1. Quantitative Comparison for Domestic Case

OPEX Comparison

MPLPEP

22.5

1.2(- 10% vs LP)

25.0

21.7
(- 13.2% vs LP)

Unloading/
Storage/Heating/
Boosting

MarineTransportation

Storage &Loading

Liquefaction

12.8(+7.6% vs LP)

1.3

1.1

7.1 -7.8%（-22%vs LP）

11.9

12.9

9.1

4.2

-15.6%(+8.4% vs LP) （-54%vs LP）

43.6 USD/CO ton
2(Emission: 184 kton-CO2/Year)(*1)

47.3 USD/CO ton
2(Emission: 200 kton-CO2/Year)(*1)

39.9 USD/CO ton
2(Emission: 165 kton-CO2/Year)(*1)(*1): Assumed all energy is fed by LNG (LNG thermal Power, LNG fueled ship)••••

120JPY/USD
Indication only
OPEX onshore : Electricity only (excluding labor cost /maintenance cost etc…)
OPEX marine : all inclusive (fuel/port/crew/insurance/dock/R&M etc)

13

© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

4-1. Quantitative Comparison for Domestic Case

OPEX

CAPEX

MP

4.1

2.1

5.5

2.1

22.5

CAPEX

LP

4.3

1

6.3

4.0 1.3

5.5

1.0

25.0

12.8

57.4

7.1

-4.2%

1.3

11.9

9.1

USD/CO2 ton

59.9

USD/CO2 ton

OPEX
1.3

21.7
•••••
•
•

1.2

OPEX

CAPEX

EP

Unloading/Storage/Heating/Boosting

MarineTransportation

Storage &Loading

Liquefaction

120JPY/USD
Indication only
CAPEX : excluding financing and miscellaneous cost
OPEX onshore : Electricity only (excluding labor cost /maintenance cost etc…)
OPEX marine : all inclusive (fuel/port/crew/insurance/dock/R&M etc)

1.1

12.9

4.2

-13.2%

52.0

USD/CO2 ton

Unit cost is not covering all cost aspects. Costs assumed to be similar among the three modes
is excluded regardless OPEX consists majority of CCS VC cost
EP CAPEX is more or less similar while big difference in OPEX cost among the three modes.

14© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

4-1. Quantitative Comparison for Domestic CaseLCO2 Storage Tank - Breakdown

LP/MP; Spherical tank ≒ 22,000 m3, EP; CTC tank ≒ 24,200 m3
MPLPEP

Medium Pressure

Low Pressure

Elevated Pressure

Tank Type

Spherical(ID 11,980 mm×32 mm)

Spherical(ID 21,500 mm×37.9 mm)

CTC

Nameplate capacity

900 m3/base5,000 m3/base

240 m3/set

Total empty weight

4,200 tons/28 units(150 tons/unit)

3,350 tons/5 units(670 tons/unit)10,200 tons/102 sets(100 tons/set)Material

Aluminum-killed steel (SPV490)

Aluminum-killed steel (SLA325A)

API 5L X70

Construction cost Ratio

1005060

77 months ~48 ~ 74 months

appx 32 months

EPC sequence (2 crew case)

EPC sequence (2 crew case)

Construction
ScheduleEng.(10)
Civil (12)Outline Footprint

Eng.(10)Fabrication (55)

Approx. 9,000 m2

Civil (12) Fabrication (26)Approx. 4,700 m2

EPC sequence
Eng.(10)

Civil (12)CTC
Manufacturing (6)Installation (4)Building (6)Approx. 3,200 m2

15© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

4-2. Quantitative Comparison for Overseas CaseCompare LP and EP LCO2 transport from Japan to Australia
Scope in Japan domestic part is the same regardless LCO2 operating mode
CAPEX is assumed to be in the same order as the domestic case.
Focus on entire OPEX evaluation

OPEX Comparison

Storage &Loading

Liquefaction

LPEP
•••
•

25.0

21.7
(- 13.2% vs LP)

1.8

1.7

120JPY/USD
Indication only
OPEX onshore : Electricity only (excluding labor cost /maintenance cost etc…)
OPEX marine : all inclusive (fuel/port/crew/insurance/dock/R&M etc)

MarineTransportation

20.2

22.1
(+ 9.4% vs LP)

Unloading/
Storage/Heating/Boosting

9.4

4.9 - 10.5%(- 47.9% vs LP)

Domestic OPEX Case

56.3 USD/CO ton
2

50.4 USD/CO ton
2

16© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

5. Outstanding Actions for Social Implementation
CCS VC utilize existing materials and technologies, and it has less technical uncertainty.
On the other hand, the operation, safety, and maintenance philosophies of each facility
should be developed in the execution phase of each project, and will be an action item
CaptureCommercial
operation ofCO2 recovery
system fromcombustion
exhaust gas

Liquefaction

The scale up isnecessary toincrease the size
but it iscomposed byproventechnologies

Storage &Loading

Technology oftank and loading
system can bereferred theexisting
technologies

MarineTransportation

Unloading/Storage/Heating/BoostingNo technicalbottleneck as itis composed byproventechnologies

Injection

Track record ofEOR, CO2
sequestration

17© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

5. Outstanding Actions for Social Implementation

Outstanding Actions for Social Implementation
MPMedium Pressure

Storage/Loading/Unloading

LPLow Pressure- Require large number of spherical tanks and capacity- Longer construction schedule, manpower for construction ofspherical tank
- Pressure vessel type tank option-Development of operating procedure for LCO2 loading

MarineTransportationEP

Elevated Pressure- Technical limiataion ofupsizing MP tanks- Economic Difficulty inupscaling MP vessels- Prevention of possible dryice
formation during voyage- Material development for cost
optimization- Development of Operation,
Maintainane and Safety Philosophies
for CTC tank
- Development of Annual inspection
method- Establishment of CTC Supply Chainat scale including mill maker,fabrication yard and transportation

18© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

6. Summary Domestic Comparison: The study compares three modes of LCO2 liquefaction
and transport based on domestic transport in Japan. The CAPEX is equivalent
for LP/EP, but relatively high for MP due to the large number of tanks. In termsof OPEX, EP<MP<LP, indicating differences in energy efficiency duringliquefaction and injection.
 Overseas Comparison: LP has advantage in terms of the energy efficiency forship transport. However, when considering the entire value chain includingliquefaction and injection, it is confirmed that EP has an advantage under theconditions of the study.
 Challenges in the value chain: The study recognizes that temporary storage isthe most challenging aspect of the value chain due to the prolonged
construction period. This should be addressed with plant owners and suppliers
to optimize delivery schedules.
19© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

© NYK Line, KNCC and Chiyoda Corporation 2024, All Rights Reserved.

20