GLOBALSTATUSOF CCS2019
TARGETING
CLIMATE CHANGE

URGENT ACTIONIS REQUIRED TO
ACHIEVE CLIMATECHANGE TARGETS
CARBON CAPTURE
AND STORAGE
IS VITAL1.0
INTRODUCTIONABOUT USABOUT THE REPORTThe Global CCS Institute (the Institute) is aninternational think tank whose mission is to accelerate
the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS),
a vital technology to tackle climate change.

CCS is an emissions reduction technology
critical to meeting global climate targets.

As a team of almost 40 professionals, working withand on behalf of our Members, we drive the adoptionof CCS as quickly and cost effectively as possible; sharing
expertise, building capacity and providing advice andsupport so CCS can play its part in reducing greenhousegas emissions.
Our diverse international membership includes
governments, global corporations, private companies,
research bodies and non-governmental organisations;
all committed to CCS as an integral part of a net-zeroemissions future.
The Institute is headquartered in Melbourne, Australia
with offices in Washington DC, Brussels, Beijing,
London and Tokyo.

The Global Status of CCS 2019 documents importantmilestones for CCS over the past 12 months, its statusacross the world and the key opportunities
and challenges it faces.
We hope this report will be read and used bygovernments, policy-makers, academics, media
commentators and the millions of people who careabout our climate.

AUTHORSThe team that prepared this report and its underlying
analyses: This report was led by Brad Page, Guloren Turanand Alex Zapantis and included Lee Beck, Chris Consoli,
Ian Havercroft, Harry Liu, Patricia Loria, Annya Schneider,
Eve Tamme, Alex Townsend, Lucy Temple-Smith,
Dominic Rassool and Tony Zhang.
Other Institute staff members who contributed to thisreport are: Jamie Burrows, Jeff Erikson, Bruno Gerritts,
Carla Judge, David Kearns, Xiangshan Ma, Rob Mitchell,
Hiroshi Nambo and Nabeela Raji.

5

ACRONYMS

CONTENTSBECCS Bioenergy with CCS
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CCUS Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage
COP Conference of the PartiesDAC Direct Air Capture
DACCS Direct Air Capture with Carbon Storage
EC European Commission
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
ESG Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance
ETS Emissions Trading Scheme
EU ETS European Union’s Emissions Trading System
EU European Union
FEED Front-End Engineering Design
GHG Greenhouse Gas
Gt Gigatonne
GW Gigawatt
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
MMV Monitoring, Measurement and Verification
Mtpa Million Metric Tonnes Per Annum
MW Megawatt
NDC Nationally Determined Contribution
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development
R&D Research and Development
SDS Sustainable Development Scenario
SMR Steam Methane Reformation
SOE State Owned Enterprise
TWH Terrawatt Hour
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change
UK United Kingdom
US United States of America
US DOE United States Department of Energy

1.0

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

INTRODUCTION
About Global CCS Institute
About the Report
Acronyms
CEO Foreword

2.0	MEETING THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE:
THE NEED FOR CCS
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS
Global CCS Facilities Update
Policy Levers for Accelerating Deployment
Global CO2 Storage Overview
Legal and Regulatory Overview

4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

REGIONAL OVERVIEWSInternational Climate Policy Overview
Americas
EuropeMiddle East and Central Asia
Asia Pacific5.0	CCS DEVELOPMENT:TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS
5.1
Natural Gas
5.2 Hydrogen
5.3
CCS in the Power Sector
5.4	Bioenergy with Carbon Captureand Storage (BECCS)
5.5
Direct Air Capture (DAC)
5.6 CO2 Utilisation
5.7 CCS Innovation
5.8 Industry’s Transition to a Net-zero Future
6.0

APPENDICES

7.0

REFERENCES

1.0 Introduction
1.4 CEO Foreword

BRAD PAGE
CEO
Global CCS InstituteAs if the world needed any more evidence thatthe effects of climate change are with us now andgetting worse, 2019 bore witness to unprecedented
catastrophic events that go well beyond weather
variability and cannot be explained away as simply
extreme events that happen from time-to-time. Firesof devastating proportion and impact – in many cases
more severe and widespread than ever previously
experienced – have wrought havoc in countries asdisparate as the United States (US), France, Greece,
Portugal and Australia. Elsewhere, extreme storm
events have been experienced. Think Typhoon Hagibis
in Japan during the Rugby World Cup, prolonged
monsoons in India, Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas
and Typhoon Lekima in China to name but a few, allwith devastating loss of life and property. Meanwhile
droughts worsen and deepen in many parts of theworld, including in essential food production areas.
The climate science has been clear for many years. Now
we are experiencing first hand the impacts of unabatedgreenhouse gas emissions.
Time is not on our side to achieve the necessary targets
agreed at the historic COP 21 in Paris in 2015. We havein the recent past had highly credible analysis of options
and pathways to achieve the 2˚C and 1.5˚C targets
along with net zero carbon emissions by mid-century.
Indeed, the IPCC 1.5˚C Special Report makes it clearthat all technologies, and especially CCS in various
applications, are necessary along with reaching net zero
emissions around 2050. The 4 pathways offered by the
IPCC all demand urgent and unprecedented levels of
1

action. It is possible to get there but it requires policies
that mobilise enormous sums of capital to deliver anunprecedented transformation of the global energy
system. It is hard but it can be done.
The recurring theme of many deeply analytical andcredible reports is that we need all technologies to win
this wrestle. We can no longer afford to have confectedcompetitions between technologies with prejudicesthat serve to compromise our ability to rapidly reduce
emissions.
Against this background we have seen exciting new
developments in the energy transformation during
2019. For the second year in a row the CCS facility
pipeline has grown. The flexibility, applicability andincreasingly positive economics of applying CCS toa range of emission sources is coming to the fore.
As this report reveals, positive policy intentions andsettings are apparent in many parts of the world andespecially the US, the UK, Norway and the Netherlands
leading to more projects being added to our globallycomprehensive database. CCS is also to the fore in theplans and policies of the EU while Japan continues tomake impressive strides forward. It is also notable that
China continues to attach importance to CCS and has
established a new professional committee to broaden
the advice and support to government on CCS policy
and actions.
2019 will also be celebrated for the commencementof injection at the world’s largest geological storage
facility – Gorgon – offshore NW Western Australia.

Ramping up over time to capture and store between
3.4 and 4.0 million tonnes of CO2 per annum, Gorgon
puts Australia on the CCS facility map and is a credit to
the determination and persistence of the joint venture
partners led by Chevron and including prominent
Institute members Shell and Exxon Mobil.

developing the new energy economy based on clean
fuels like hydrogen, is dependent on CCS deployment.
And as CCS is deployed, many communities that
otherwise may have a less prosperous outlook in a
carbon-constrained world become a positive partof the transition.

Hydrogen as a vital new energy source in the
decarbonisation race was also to the fore in 2019.
In Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea and anincreasing number of other countries, hydrogen is
receiving policy attention not seen for several decades.
The difference this time around is that the need fora zero-emission energy dense fuel is vital and thetechnology to produce and deliver the hydrogen has
advanced substantially in the intervening period. As
is noted later in this report, the most technologically
proven, economical, at-scale process for producing
clean hydrogen is through steam methane reforming
or coal gasification, both with CCS. The potential
market for clean hydrogen is substantial and earlystage investment in production facilities, evidenced forexample in the Japanese/Australian joint venture ofbuilding a coal gasification pilot plant, is the harbinger
of a growing industry as are plans in the UK and inEurope.

But we have much more work to do. Few clean energy
technologies are on track to be deployed at the scalerequired to meet the Paris climate targets. CCS is
resurgent but still lagging while emissions again rosein the past year. Now is the time to rally for greater
policy support and for capital to be allocated to buildon the positive CCS progress of the past two years.

Perhaps the most compelling development in the last
12 months though is that increasingly, CCS is the standout technology to genuinely deliver a just transition
for many fossil fuel-based communities. Dealing withthe associated emissions for extracting, processing
and using fossil fuels and perhaps more significantly21.0 Introduction
CCS Ambassador

LORD NICHOLAS STERNIG Patel Professor of Economics & Government,
London School of Economics
Chair, Grantham Research Institute

The effects of climate change are already raging
across the world with wild fires, droughts, andrising sea levels. Bad as it is already, we risk far
worse. Failure to mitigate climate change is deeply
dangerous; we owe it to future generations to tackle
this global and urgent problem. The faster we canreduce emissions in the near-term, the better ourchance of preventing the worst impacts of climatechange.
For this, we need to change the way we think
about this global challenge. Turning towards a
new form of sustainable economic growth andlooking at investment in innovation would also
yield strong societal and economic returns. The
Global Commission on the Economy and Climate
has shown that bold climate action could deliver
returns of trillions of dollars per year in the period
to 2030 and create more than 60 million good jobs.
We need to invest in all opportunities for emissions
reductions while radically changing how we work,
live, and consume. Living and consuming more
efficiently is the first step, along with a massive
growth in renewable and clean energy. Yet, we must
not forget that we will need to completely transformthe economy for it to become carbon neutral anddeploy a portfolio of measures and technology
solutions to accelerate the clean energy transition.

3

One of the opportunities that we have at hand,carbon capture, use and storage, will play a vitalrole as indicated by the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change’s Report on Global Warming of
1.5 ºC. The diversity of its applications is immense;from direct air capture delivering negativeemissions, to the ability to prevent infrastructure
emissions lock-ins by abating existing
infrastructure in the industrial and power sectors,
capturing, using and storing carbon will be a vital
instrument in reaching net-zero emissions goals.
As is the case for many abatement options, effective
actions and policy to accelerate the deploymentof a wide-range of carbon capture use and storage
technologies across many sectors of the economy,
and especially those that are hard to decarbonise,
are urgently needed.
As a society, we have a responsibility towards future
generations to mitigate climate change. Investment
in mitigation and innovation will undoubtedly offer
large returns and great value, while improving ourability to tackle climate change through sustained
action. Time is short, but we have in our hands a
different model of development. It is the sustainable
and inclusive growth story of the 21st century.

“CARBON CAPTURE,
USE AND STORAGE,WILL PLAY A VITAL ROLEAS INDICATED BY THE
INTERGOVERNMENTALPANEL ON CLIMATECHANGE’S REPORTON GLOBAL WARMING
OF 1.5ºC.”
Lord Nicholas Stern
IG Patel Professor of Economics & Government,
London School of Economics
Chair, Grantham Research Institute41.0
CCS Ambassador“

JADE HAMEISTER OAM
Polar explorer

Together, we are all part of the human species.
Separating us are just divisions of our own making– such as religious beliefs, borders drawn on maps,
concepts of race, money, and gender.
Debates about saving our planet from global
warming are misplaced.

I now feel a deep emotional connection with ourplanet Earth and a responsibility to play my partin the protection of these incredibly beautiful
and fragile environments.
My polar expeditions confirmed for me that
global warming is an undeniable truth.

But… what if? What if we could focus more on thisgreat threat to humanity and why we need to work
together, rather than focus on what spreads us
apart?

That is why I call on the political and businessleaders to stop arguing and start taking massive
action. It’s not about choosing the best technology –it’s about supporting ALL viable technologies
and ideas, including carbon capture and storage –that together create a web that seeks to hold global
temperature rise to under two degrees Celsius(if that is even still possible).

If we can make this shift, we could learn to relate
as one great tribe of humans, learn to respect ourcommon home, and ultimately save the future of
all life on Earth, including our own.

My generation will inherit this great threat ofglobal warming and the political decisions oftoday’s leaders. Please give us a platform fromwhich we can still achieve a positive outcome.

At just 18, I am no expert on the science of global
warming, but I am likely the only person on theplanet of my generation to have the privilege offirst-hand experience in Earth’s three main polar
regions. Journeys that saw me cover a total ofaround 1,300km in 80 days.

I am confident that my generation will have thetechnology, the passion and the unified movement
to make a meaningful difference, but it is up to
current world leaders to make sure we still havea fighting chance.

Planet Earth doesn’t need saving - it will recoverlong after we have wiped ourselves and all other lifeout – this is about the survival of the human species.

5

Please, give us that fighting chance.

“IT’S ABOUTSUPPORTING
ALL VIABLETECHNOLOGIES& IDEAS,
INCLUDINGCARBONCAPTURE& STORAGE”
Jade Hameister OAM
Polar explorer

61.0
CCS Ambassador

BILL GATES“I often hear that lower cost solar and wind power
along with the emerging breakthroughs in energy
storage mean that these sources will be enoughto get us to a carbon-free power grid. But because
the world must balance the need to eliminate
carbon emissions with economic growth, weshould also consider what solutions would be
most affordable. A recent study from researchers
at MIT found that supporting renewable energy
with a mix of clean energy solutions— including
nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS)—
would make carbon-free electricity up to 62
percent cheaper than using renewables alone.
Another way we can get zero-carbon electricity
is carbon capture, utilisation, and storage,
which separates and permanently stores CO2
pollution from an energy plant’s exhaust to
keep it out of the atmosphere. This technology
is especially important in places where there
isn’t good renewable energy potential, or where
it would be too costly to retire and replace
existing power plants.

7

“ANOTHER WAY
WE CAN GET
ZERO-CARBON
ELECTRICITYIS CARBONCAPTURE,UTILISATION,& STORAGE”
Bill Gates
GatesNotes.com,
May 14, 2019

8

2.0
MEETING THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE:
THE NEED FOR CCS

9

1.0

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

INTRODUCTION
About Global CCS Institute
About the Report
Acronyms
CEO Foreword

2.0	MEETING THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE:
THE NEED FOR CCS
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS
Global CCS Facilities Update
Policy Levers for Accelerating Deployment
Global CO2 Storage Overview
Legal and Regulatory Overview

4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

REGIONAL OVERVIEWSInternational Climate Policy Overview
Americas
EuropeMiddle East and Central Asia
Asia Pacific5.0	CCS DEVELOPMENT:TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS
5.1
Natural Gas
5.2 Hydrogen
5.3
CCS in the Power Sector
5.4	Bioenergy with Carbon Captureand Storage (BECCS)
5.5
Direct Air Capture (DAC)
5.6 CO2 Utilisation
5.7 CCS Innovation
5.8 Industry’s Transition to a Net-zero Future
6.0

APPENDICES

7.0

REFERENCES

2.0 Meeting the Climate Challenge: The Need for CCS

CCS IS VITAL TO ACHIEVE
CLIMATE CHANGE TARGETS
Despite both the urgent need for action to mitigate climate change,
and the rapid take-up of renewable energy over the past 20 years,
progress in curbing emissions has been slow. Approximately 80 per
cent of primary energy is supplied by fossil fuels, the same as 50 years
ago. Global energy-related CO2 emissions are on an upward trend
again—having temporarily stabilised for a few years, they rose by 1.7
per cent in 20181. Government commitments do not bridge the gap
between current emissions and the remaining global carbon budget.
Analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and International Energy Agency (IEA) has consistently shown that
CCS is an essential part of the lowest cost path towards meetingclimate targets. The IPCC's Fifth Annual Assessment Report (AR5)showed that excluding CCS from the portfolio of technologies used
to reduce emissions would lead to a doubling in cost - the largest cost
increase from the exclusion of any technology.

11

The Special Report on Global warming of 1.5°C2 (IPCC SR15)
reinforced the important role of CCS in avoiding dangerous climatechange. It underlined that reducing emissions alone is no longer
enough. To limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C above pre-industrial
levels, the world must reach net zero emissions by around 2050. Most
modelling scenarios show that this will require significant deploymentof negative emissions technologies. Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS)
is one of the few available that can deliver to the necessary scale.
As the IPCC SR15 report outlined, it is possible to construct emissions
abatement models that limit global warming to 1.5 without CCS, but
extensive near-term reductions in energy demand would be necessary.
To accommodate rising population and income, extreme societal andbehavioural changes would be necessary. Experience to date suggests
such radical changes are extremely challenging and highly improbable.

CCS IS A PROVEN AND WELL
UNDERSTOOD TECHNOLOGY
CCS prevents carbon dioxide (CO2) from being released into theatmosphere. The technology involves capturing CO2 produced bylarge industrial plants, compressing it for transportation and theninjecting it deep into a rock formation at a carefully selected andsafe site, where it is permanently stored.
CCS is proven and well understood. Since the 1930s, carbon
capture equipment has been used commercially to purify naturalgas, hydrogen and other gas streams in industrial settings. CO2 was
first injected underground in commercial-scale operations in 1972.
Over 260 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 emissions from human activity(anthropogenic sources) has already been captured and stored.
The global capture and storage capacity of projects currently
operating or under construction, stands at around 40 million
tonnes per annum (Mtpa).
CCS reduces emissions from industrial processes vital to the global
economy; like steel, cement and chemicals production. Paired withbioenergy used for power generation or biofuel production, it is oneof few technologies that can deliver negative emissions on a large
enough scale to limit temperature rises to 1.5°C. It can be applied
to coal and gas fired power plants to help provide low emissions
generation capacity, complementing increased use of intermittent
renewables; and in the production of low carbon hydrogen for fuel,heat and transport.

THE NEED FOR AND BENEFITFROM URGENT ACTION
The IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2019 describes the measuresnecessary to deliver its Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS),
a future where the United Nations energy related sustainable
development goals for emissions, energy access and air quality are
met. This scenario is consistent with a 66 per cent probability oflimiting global temperature rise to 1.8 degrees Celsius without relying
on large scale negative emissions.
As shown in Figure 1 under this scenario:• Carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS)i provides 9 per centof the cumulative emissions reduction between now and 2050
• The average mass of CO2 captured and permanently stored eachyear between 2019 and 2050 is 1.5 billion tonnes per annum

GT CO2

2000• The mass of CO2 captured and permanently stored in 2050
reaches 2.8 billion tonnes per annum• The mass of CO2 captured is split almost equally between
the power sector and industry sectors including iron andsteel production, cement production, refineries and upstream
oil and gas production.
The deployment of CCS is not happening quickly enough for it to playits role in meeting emissions reductions targets at the lowest possible
cost. The IEA’s ‘Tracking Clean Energy’ progress indicator, provides
a status snapshot of 39 critical energy technologies needed to meeta less than 2°C target under its Sustainable Development Scenario(SDS). Only seven of the technologies assessed are “on-track”.
Critically CCS in power, and in industry and transformation,
are “off-track”.
To achieve the levels outlined in the SDS, the number of industrial
scale facilities needs to increase a hundredfold, from 19 in operation
now to more than 2,000 by 2040.
To rapidly scale up the technology in a smooth and steady way,urgent action is required. Governments have a pivotal role to play,by providing a clear, stable and supportive policy framework for CCS.
The good news is that CCS provides a wealth of benefits in addition
to its primary role in reducing emissions. It enables a just transition
to new low emissions industries for communities currently reliant onemissions intense employment. It can protect people from the severe
economic and social disruption that otherwise results from closing
local industries. On top of this, CCS:
• supports high paying jobs;• reduces total system costs of electricity supply by providing reliable,
dispatchable generation capacity when fitted on flexible fossil fuelpower plants;• can utilise existing infrastructure that would otherwise
be decommissioned, helping to defer shut-down costs; and• provides knowledge spillovers that can support innovationbased economic growth.
The time available to limit temperature rises to 1.5°C is running out.
Widespread use of CCS technology is critical to meeting these goals.
We need to scale up deployment now.

2018

40

2050

STATED POLICIES SCENARIO
37% EFFICIENCY

30

32% RENEWABLES

20

SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO
108% FUEL SWITCHING
3% NUCLEAR
9% CCUS
12% OTHER

FIGURE 1 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN THE IEA'S SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO (SDS)3
Note: CCUS (carbon capture utilisation and storage)
122.0
CCS Ambassador

PROFESSOR SALLY BENSON
Co-Director, Precourt Institute for Energy;
Director, Global Climate & Energy Project;
Professor, Energy Resources Engineering Department;
Senior Fellow, Precourt Institute for Energy
Stanford University

CLOSING THE AMBITION GAP AND
GETTING ON WITH THE INEVITABLE
When I was a teenager growing up in Northern
California, we had a big wildfire every 10 years
or so. Shockingly, thousands of homes would
be lost and many more people displaced. Now
huge wildfires happen every year. As I write
this, one hundred kilometers north, 77,000
acres are burning, casting a haze of smoke
across the state. Those once-rare and extreme
events like wildfires, floods, droughts, extreme
heat, and intense hurricanes happen much
more frequently now, with enormous societal
cost and personal suffering. Climate change
is no longer abstract or something we need toworry about in the future. I am worried now.
Over the last 20 years, the role of carbon
capture and storage has evolved from “niceto have,” to “necessary,” and now, CCUS is
inevitable. We need Gt* scale CCUS now.
We are using up our carbon budget so quickly,that at some point in the not-to-distant future
we are likely to begin scrubbing carbon dioxidefrom the atmosphere. But this is much lessefficient than capturing CO2 directly from point
sources. So why aren’t we doing more to scale
up CCUS from point sources when we could
stop these emissions now?

*Billion tons of CO2 captured and stored per annum
13

Of course, there are many reasons why we aren’t
doing more. At the top of the list is lack of the
carrots or sticks that would motivate action andjustify the investment. But perhaps even more
important than this, we have an ambition gap
between the rate that CCUS is growing today –about 10 per cent a year, compared to the rate
needed to reach a Gt/year by 2040. If we could
just double scaleup rate to 20 per cent per year,
and sustain that to 2040, bingo, we reach
1 Gt/year by 2040. Let’s do it.

“OVER THE LAST
20 YEARS, THE
ROLE OF CARBONCAPTURE AND
STORAGE HASEVOLVED FROM‘NICE TO HAVE,’
TO ‘NECESSARY,’AND NOW, CCUSIS INEVITABLE.”

Professor Sally Benson
Co-Director, Precourt Institute for Energy;
Director, Global Climate & Energy Project;
Professor, Energy Resources Engineering Department;
Senior Fellow, Precourt Institute for Energy
Stanford University

14

3.0
GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS

15

1.0

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

INTRODUCTION
About Global CCS Institute
About the Report
Acronyms
CEO Foreword

2.0	MEETING THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE:
THE NEED FOR CCS
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS
Global CCS Facilities Update
Policy Levers for Accelerating Deployment
Global CO2 Storage Overview
Legal and Regulatory Overview

4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

REGIONAL OVERVIEWSInternational Climate Policy Overview
Americas
EuropeMiddle East and Central Asia
Asia Pacific5.0	CCS DEVELOPMENT:TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS
5.1
Natural Gas
5.2 Hydrogen
5.3
CCS in the Power Sector
5.4	Bioenergy with Carbon Captureand Storage (BECCS)
5.5
Direct Air Capture (DAC)
5.6 CO2 Utilisation
5.7 CCS Innovation
5.8 Industry’s Transition to a Net-zero Future
6.0

APPENDICES

7.0

REFERENCES

3.0 Global Status of CCS
3.1 Global CCS Facilities Update

3.1
GLOBAL CCS
FACILITIES UPDATELARGE SCALE CCS FACILITIESIN OPERATION & CONSTRUCTIONPILOT & DEMOSTRATION SCALE FACILITY
IN OPERATION & CONSTRUCTIONLARGE SCALE CCS FACILITIESIN ADVANCED DEVELOPMENTPILOT & DEMOSTRATION SCALE FACILITYIN ADVANCED DEVELOPMENTLARGE SCALE CCS FACILITIES COMPLETEDPILOT & DEMOSTRATION SCALE
FACILITY COMPLETEDLARGE SCALE = >400,000 TONNES OF CO2
CAPTURED PER ANNUMTEST CENTRE

FIGURE 2 CURRENT CCS FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLDii

17

Over the past year the global development and deployment of CCS
continued to gather pace. The world map on these pages shows thegrowing presence of CCS around the globe. In 2019, the numberof large-scale CCS facilities increased to 514.
Of these:• 19 are operating;• four are under construction;• 10 are in advanced development using a dedicated front
end engineering design (FEED) approach; and• 18 are in early development.
Right now, those in operation and construction have the capacity tocapture and permanently store around 40 million tonnes of CO2 every
year. This is expected to increase by about one million tonnes in thenext 12-18 months. In addition, there are 39 pilot and demonstration
scale CCS facilities (operating or about to be commissioned) and nine
CCS technology test centres.

MAJOR STRIDES IN 2019 FOR CCS
In 2019, more than 25 million tonnes of CO2 from the power
and industrial sectors was permanently stored using CCS.
Two new facilities commenced operation and others reported theachievement of significant cumulative CO2 storage milestones:• CO2 injection commenced at the Gorgon natural gas processing
plant on Barrow Island off the coast of Western Australia in August
2019. This will be the world’s largest dedicated geological CO2
storage facility when it ramps up to full capacity storing up to 4.0
Mtpa CO2 a year5.
• The Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL), a 240-kilometre CO2
pipeline, expected to come online in 2020, will offer CO2 transport
services to industry in Alberta, Canada. North West Redwater
Partnership’s Sturgeon refinery and the Agrium fertiliser plant
will jointly supply around 1.6 Mtpa of CO2 via the pipeline
to EOR operations in central Alberta.
• 100 million tonnes – Shute Creek gas processing plant in Wyoming
US, with a 7 Mtpa CO2 capture capacity, has cumulatively captured
more than 100 million tonnes of CO2 from natural gas processing
operations for use in enhanced oil recovery6.
• 38 million tonnes – Great Plains Synfuels plant in North Dakota
US, captures CO2 from the coal (lignite) gasification process,producing syngas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) for energy use
and chemical production. It has delivered around 38 million tonnesof CO2 for EOR in the Weyburn and Midale fields in Canada since
it commenced operation since 20007.
• 22 million tonnes – On the Norwegian continental shelf, Sleipner
CO2 storage and Snøhvit CO2 storage facilities have cumulatively
captured and stored around 22 million tonnes of CO28. Sleipner
was the world's first large scale dedicated CO2 geological storage
facility, storing CO2 from natural gas processing since 1996.
• 10 million tonnes – Petrobras Santos Basin CO2-EOR facility inoffshore Brazil, reached a milestone of 10 million tonnes of CO2
captured and reinjected in the natural gas processing industry9.
Petrobras is continually expanding the capacity of its floatingproduction storage and offloading (FPSO) units, aiming tocumulatively reinject more than 40 million tonnes of CO2 by 2025.

18

3.0 Global Status of CCS
3.1 Global CCS Facilities Update
APPLICATIONSIN OPERATION

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020 2021

2022 2023 2024 2025+

WASTE
INCINERATIONNORWAY FULL CHAIN

CEMENTPRODUCTIONCHEMICALPRODUCTIONILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL
IRON & STEELPRODUCTION

INTEGRATED
MIDCONTINENT
HUB

LAKE
CHARLESMETHANOLSINOPEC QILUYANCHANGABU DHABI PHASE 1

HYDROGENPRODUCTIONCARBONNET*GREATPLAINSFERTISLISER
PRODUCTION

AIR
PRODUCTSENID
FERTILISER

NATURAL GASPROCESSINGACTL
STURGEON

QUEST

COFFFEYVILLEACTL AGRIUM

SNØHVIT
SHUTE
CREEK

PORTHOSWABASHCNPC JILINPETROBRAS PRE-SALT

CENTURYPLANT

TERRELL(FORMERLYVAL VERDE)ABU DHABI
PHASE 2GORGONUTHMANIYAHLOST CABINSLEIPNER
POWER
GENERATIONCARBONSAFE ILLINOIS HUB*
BOUNDARY DAMPETRA NOVADRY FORKPROJECT TUNDRA= 1 Mtpa CO2 CIRCLE AREAPROPORTIONATE TO CAPACITY

IN OPERATION

IN CONSTRUCTIONADVANCED DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 3 POWER AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS OF LARGE-SCALE CCS FACILITIESIN OPERATION, UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND IN ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT*Size of the circle is proportional to the capture capacity of the facility.
Indicates the primary industry type of the facility among various options.

• 5 million tonnes – Air Products’ carbon capture plant on hydrogenin Port Arthur US, has mitigated more than 5 million tonnes of CO2
by coupling steam methane reforming (SMR) with CCS and has
been in operation since 201310.
• 4 million tonnes – The Quest CCS facility in Canada, operating
since the end of 2015, has been capturing CO2 from the SMR
process for hydrogen production. Shell Canada announced that
4 million tonnes of CO2 had been captured and safely stored,
ahead of schedule11.
• 3 million tonnes – Boundary Dam CCS, the first large-scale
CCS facility in power generation, for Boundary Dam Unit 3 inSaskatchewan, Canada has been in operation since the end of 2014.
The facility passed 3 million tonnes of CO2 captured in 201912.

Abu Dhabi Phase 2 natural gas processing plant

Investment in CCS is slowly gathering momentum. Figure 3 (above)shows CCS growth planned for the next five years and beyond.

Project Tundra

Facilities that entered the advanced developmentiii stage for the
first time in 2019 are summarised in the following paragraphs:

19

Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) is developing its second
CCUS facility in the United Arab Emirates. It will capture 1.9 to 2.3
Mtpa of CO2 from its gas processing plant for EOR. Both the Abu Dhabi
Phase 1 (CO2 capture from the Emirates Steel Industries steel plant)
and Abu Dhabi Phase 2 facilities will store CO2 in the same reservoir.
Wabash CO2 sequestration
Wabash Valley Resources LLC aims to develop an ammonia plant withnear-zero CO2 emissions using a repurposed integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) plant in Indiana, USA. The facility will capture
1.5 to 1.75 Mtpa CO2 for dedicated geological storage in the Wabash
CarbonSAFE CO2 storage hub.
The Minnkota Power Cooperative is planning the retrofit of a 3.1 to
3.6 Mtpa CO2 capture plant to the Milton R. Young coal-fired power
station in North Dakota USA. Carbon dioxide will be captured from
Unit 2 of the power station which generates 455 megawatts of electric(MWe). They are initially targeting dedicated geological storage sites.
The North Dakota CarbonSAFE Storage Hubiii is studying the future
potential for the utilisation of CO2 from this facility for EOR.

Dry Fork integrated commercial CCS
The Basin Electric Power Cooperative aims to capture 3.0 Mtpa CO2
from the 385 MW Dry Fork coal-fired power station in Wyoming, USA.
They are targeting adjacent geological storage formations currently
being studied by Wyoming CarbonSAFE13. The Cooperative is also
considering EOR as a potential CO2 storage pathway, utilising nearby
CO2 pipeline networks and EOR operations.
CarbonSAFE Illinois hub – Macon Countyiii
Building on learnings from Illinois Industrial CCS facility in theArcher Daniels Midland Ethanol plant, this project seeks to establish a
50+ million tonne commercial geological storage hub in Illinois USA.
Adjacent power plants, such as Prairie State Generation (816 MWe,coal fired power plant, 10 Mtpa CO2) which has been awarded a fullscale FEED study14, and regional ethanol plants are potential CO2
sources.
Integrated mid – continent stacked carbon storage hub

CO² CAPTURE AND STORAGE CAPACITY PER YEAR (Mtpa)

Storage infrastructure would be established in southwestern
Nebraska and southwestern Kansas to enable collection of CO2
from ethanol plants, power plants and refineries in the region.
Ethanol plants producing 1.9-5 Mtpa CO2 in the region could utilise
this infrastructure. The Nebraska Public Power District’s Gerald
Gentleman Station (coal fired) is another potential source of CO2 forthis storage hub. A FEED study on the retrofit of Ion Engineering’s
non-aqueous ICE-21 solvent capture technology to the Gerald
Gentleman Station is underway15.

THE CCS PIPELINE IS REPLENISHING,
BUT NOT FAST ENOUGH
Figure 4 (below) shows how the CCS facility pipeline has developed
over the past decade. It shows a continuous decrease in the numberof facilities in the pipeline between 2010 and 2017 followed by
year-on-year increases in 2018 and 2019. There are many possible
explanations for this pattern and it is not possible to be definitive about
the causes. However it is likely that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC)
which started in mid 2007 and ran through 2009 contributed to theobserved decline. The uncertainty in global markets and the economic
downturn that accompanied the GFC focussed governments’ attention
on short term economic recovery and focussed the private sector
on survival. Action to mitigate climate change fell down the list ofpriorities and both public policy and private capital responded inkind. Investment in CCS, which requires strong policy and significant
capital, subsequently retreated. If data for 2007 to 2009 showed apeak in the project pipeline, that would lend weight to this hypothesis.
However, this period was prior to the 2009 establishment of theInstitute and the data therefore is unavailable.
The CCS industry has been regaining momentum since 2017 andthere are roughly four times as many large scale CCS facilities
operating today as there was in 2010. A number of factors haveprobably driven the increase in CCS project development observed in2018 and 2019. The 2015 Paris Agreement established a clear levelof ambition to limit global warming to well below 2°C and pursuingefforts to limit [it] to 1.5°C. This was supported by almost every nationof the world. This agreement refocussed governments, the private
sector and civil society on climate mitigation. This has supported
examples of stronger climate policy from government (e.g. legislating
net-zero emission targets), greater pressure from shareholders on

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2010

IN OPERATION

2011

2012

IN CONSTRUCTION

2013

2014

ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

EARLY DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 4 PIPELINE OF LARGE-SCALE CCS FACILITIES FROM2010 TO 2019: CO2 CAPTURE AND STORAGE CAPACITY
20

3.0 Global Status of CCS
3.1 Global CCS Facilities Update
publically listed companies to reduce emissions, and accelerated the
movement of capital away from high emissions assets to low emissions
assets. The net result has been a more thorough analysis of how todeliver significant emission reductions necessary to achieve ambitious
climate targets by governments, and an increased sense of urgency
in the private sector to develop strategies to insulate themselves fromfuture climate-policy risk. In both cases, CCS emerges as an essential
part of the answer. Add to these drivers the significant reduction in thecost of capture observed over the past decade, and four years after theParis Agreement, the CCS pipeline is repleneshing.
The capture capacity of operating large-scale CCS facilities has
increased from 31.2 Mtpa in 2017 to 39.2 Mtpa in in 2019. The total
capacity of all facilities at all stages of development in the pipeline has
increased from 64.5Mtpa from 37 facilities in 2017 to 97.5Mtpa from
51 facilities in 2019. A growing number of these, as well as recently
announced projects in the US, New Zealand and Qatariv, that have
not yet been added to the CCS pipeline have the potential to form thenext global wave of CCS investment in the 2020s. Also significant isthe broader application of CCS represented in the new facilities understudy. They go beyond the “low hanging fruit” opportunities likenatural gas processing, fertiliser and ethanol production to include lessdeveloped industries like hydrogen production and bio-energy CCS.
In the coal fired power sector, where the cost of CCS was once
considered too expensive, the cost of CO2 capture has reduced byhalf using only first-generation technology – down from over USD100
per tonne CO2 captured, to around USD45 per tonne. The benefits oflearning-by-doing from the first tranche of CCS facilities continues todrive costs down.
Whilst the recent uptick in investment in CCS is encouraging, it isfar from sufficient to meet climate targets. If all facilities in the CCS
pipeline now were operational in 2040 and no more entered thepipeline, CO2 capture capacity would still be approximately a factorof 20 below what is required. There is an urgent need for stronger
government policy to incentivise private sector investment in CCS.

NEXT WAVE OF CCS: HUBS AND CLUSTERS“Next wave” facilities based around CCS hubs and clusters havefeatured in 2019. Added to the Global CCS Institute's database in
201616, these facilities take advantage of the fact that many emissionsintensive facilities (both power and industrial) tend to be concentrated
in the same areas. Hubs and clusters significantly reduce the unit costof CO2 storage through economies of scale, and offer commercial
synergies that reduce the risk of investment. They can play astrategically important role in climate change mitigation.

More information about some of these hubs and clusters:• Petrobras Santos Basin CCS network was the first “CCS hub andcluster” in operation. It has a unique set up with 10 FPSOs anchoredin the Santos Basin off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The
captured CO2 is directly injected into the Lula, Sapinhoá and Lapa
oil fields for EOR.
• Supported by CAD485 million from the Alberta Government, the
ACTL will transport up to 14.6 Mtpa CO2 from Alberta’s Industrial
Heartland for CO2 emission reduction. This is in addition to CO2transport from the Sturgeon refinery and Agrium fertiliser plant.
• Northern Lights is an open-access CO2 transport and storage hub,seeking to provide capacity for large CO2 volumes across Europe21.
This will move the operation beyond the current Norway full chain
CCS facility from the Norcem and Fortum capture sites.
• Six of eight new facilities which emerged in the US are part of theUnited States Department of Energy’s Carbon Storage Assurance
Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative. This is focused on
the development of a geologic storage complex for 50 plus million
tonnes of CO2 from industrial sources.
• CarbonNet is a CO2 transport and storage hub supported by
the Victorian and Australian Governments. It will provide CO2transport and storage services to potential capture projects inAustralia’s Latrobe Valley. The Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain(HESC) project is constructing a pilot hydrogen production plant via
coal gasification and will demonstrate the transport of hydrogen by
ship to Japan. A decision on investment on a commercial hydrogenproduction plant with CCS is expected around 2025. If it proceeds,
this plant could be the first customer of the CarbonNet CO2 hub.
• Net Zero Teesside in the UK is a CO2 transport and storage hub for
the Tees Valley.
• Other CCS hubs and clusters supported as Projects of Common
Interest include Acorn Full Scale CCS, Ervia Cork, the Portof Rotterdam CCUS Backbone Initiative (PORTHOS) and theAmsterdam IJmuiden-CO2 Transport Hub and Offshore Storage(ATHOS).
• The Net Zero Teesside, Northern Lights, PORTHOS, Xinjiang
Jungger CCUS hub and the Gulf of Mexico CCUS hubs have been
selected as kickstarters for the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative’s
large-scale investment in CCS hubs and clusters18.
Further details about hubs and clusters are discussed in Section 4.0of this report.

Figure 5 (opposite) shows CCS hubs and clusters identified as having
made significant developments in 2019, and summarises some of thefeatures they share.
Key characteristics of hubs and clusters:• Multiple industrial point sources of CO2 connected to a CO2transport and storage network.
• Access to large geological storage resources with the capacity tostore CO2 from industrial sources for decades.
• Studies of almost all potential hubs and clusters have been
supported by government17.
• Economies of scale deliver lower unit-costs for CO2 storage.
• Synergies between multiple CO2 sources and the storage operator
reduce cross chain risks and support commercial viability.

21

Hubs and clusters
significantly reduce the unit
cost of CO2 storage througheconomies of scale, and offer
commercial synergies that
reduce the risk of investment.

INTEGRATED MID4 CONTINENT STACKED
CARBON STORAGE HUB

1.9 - 19.4 Mtpa

1

5 WABASH
CARBONSAFE

ACTL

9 NET ZEROTEESSIDE
0.8 - 6 Mtpa

2 - 15 Mtpa

8 NORTHERN
LIGHTS

1.5 - 18 Mtpa

1.7 - 14.6 Mtpa

CARBONSAFE
3 ILLINOIS MACON
COUNTYXINJIANG JUNGGAR
14 BASIN CCS HUB

0.8 - 5 Mtpa

0.2 - 3 Mtpa

8
9
1
2
4

3
6

14

11
12

5

10
13

7
15

NORTH DAKOTA
2 CARBONSAFE

3 - 17 Mtpa

7 PETROBRAS SANTOSBASIN CCS CLUSTER

9 FPSOs - 3 Mtpa

6 GULF OF MEXICO
CCUS HUB

6.6 - 35 Mtpa

COAL FIRED POWER
NATURAL GAS POWER
NATURAL GAS PROCESSINGFERTILISER PRODUCTION
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION

2 - 5 Mtpa

ZERO CARBON
10 HUMBER

Up to 18.3 Mtpa

INDUSTRY SECTOR

13 ABU DHABI
CLUSTER

11 PORTHOS

2.7 - 5 Mtpa

12 ATHOS

STORAGE TYPE
CHEMICAL & PETROCHEMICALPRODUCTIONCEMENT PRODUCTIONWASTE INCINERATIONETHANOL PRODUCTION
BIOMASS POWER

15 CARBONNET

1 - 6 Mtpa

2 - 5 Mtpa

DELIVERY

DEEP SALINE FORMATIONSPIPELINE

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY

SHIP

DEPLETED OIL AND GASRESERVOIRSVARIOUS OPTIONSCONSIDERED

ROAD
DIRECT INJECTION

FIGURE 5 CCUS HUBS AND CLUSTERS GLOBALLY, WITH SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS IN 201922

3.0 Global Status of CCS
3.2 Policy Levers for Accelerating Deployment
To meet climate change mitigation targets, an estimated 2000plus large scale CCS facilities must be deployed by 2040, requiring
hundreds of billions of dollars in investment. Today, there are 19
large scale facilities in operation and four under construction. Figure
6 shows that the business case for investment in each facility was
underpinned by favourable commercial conditions and supportive
policy. It demonstrates that the private sector will invest in CCS when
the right incentives are in place.

3.2
POLICY LEVERS
FOR ACCELERATINGDEPLOYMENTPolicies& projectcharacteristics

Carbontax

Tax credit
or emissions
creditGrant
support

Provision by Regulatory
government requirement
or SOEUS
Terrell
Enid Fertiliser
Shute Creek
Century Plant
Air Products SMR
Coffeyville
Lost Cabin
Illinois Industrial
Petra Nova
Great Plains
CanadaBoundary Dam
Quest
ACTL Agrium
ACTL Sturgeon
BrazilPetrobras Santos
NorwaySleipner
SnøhvitUAE
Abu Dhabi CCS
Saudi Arabia
Uthmaniyah
China
CNPC Jilin
Sinopec Qilu*
Yanchang*
Australia
GorgonFIGURE 6 CONDITIONS THAT ENABLED LARGE-SCALE FACILITIES*In construction
23

Enhanced
oil recovery

Low cost
captureLow cost
transport
and storage

Verticalintegration

BIOMASS
POWER GEN

11%

SOLAR
PV

23%

WIND
(OFFSHORE)

12%

WIND
(ONSHORE)

12%GAS(NGCC)

14%

GAS FIRED
POWER PLANT

15%

COAL FIRED
POWER PLANT

8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

AVERAGE LEARNING RATE (% REDUCTION IN COST FOR DOUBLING CAPACITY OR OUTPUT)

FIGURE 7 LEARNING RATES FOR DIFFERENT ELECTRICITY PRODUCTIONTECHNOLOGIES (THE AVERAGE FOR ONE-FACTOR MODELS)17

COST OF CO2 CAPTURE(US$ 2017 PER TONNECO2)

Like all large infrastructure projects, the development andconstruction of CCS facilities is capital intensive. This influences
the viability of projects and prices out potential investors. However,learning rates drive costs down as successive CCS facilities comeonline. For example, assuming a conservative learning rate of
8 per cent from Figure 7 (above), as facilities increase from tens
to thousands by mid-century, the cost of capturing CO2 falls byapproximately half. It is imperative that investors are incentivised
as much as possible in the early stages, to accelerate the learning
rate and attract new projects.

There is strong evidence that capture costs have already reduced.
Figure 8 (below) shows estimated costs from a range of feasibility andfront end engineering and design (FEED) studies for coal combustion
CCS facilitiesv using mature amine-based capture systems. Two of the
projects, Boundary Dam and Petra Nova are operating today. The costof capture reduced from over USD100 per tonne CO2 at the Boundary
Dam facility to below USD65 per tonne CO2 for the Petra Nova facility,
some three years later. The most recent studies show capture costs(also using mature amine-based capture systems) for facilities thatplan to commence operation in 2024-28, cluster around USD43 per
tonne of CO2. New technologies at pilot plant scale promise capture
costs around USD33 per tonne of CO2.

140

120
PORTO TOLLE
PROJECT PIONEER

100

BOUNDARY DAM

BETCHATÓW
80

ANTELOPE VALLEYKINGSNORTH60

MASSVLAKTELONGANNET

PETRA NOVAMOUNTAINEERTRAILBLAZERSHANDPROJECT TUNDRA SAN JUAN
SURAT HELE

40

20
2004

ION C3DC FUELCELL MCFC
LINDE/BASF OASE
2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

PREVIOUSLY STUDIED FACILITIESCURRENTLY OPERATINGFIRST GENERATION CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY LEARNING RATE

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

RECENTLY PROPOSED AND NEW FACILITIESNEXT GENERATION CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY LEARNING RATEFIGURE 8 LEVELISED COST OF CO2 CAPTURE FOR LARGE SCALE POST-COMBUSTIONFACILITES AT COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS, INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY STUDIED FACILITIESvii
243.0 Global Status of CCS
3.2 Policy Levers for Accelerating Deployment
The most obvious way to create incentives for investors is to placea material value on CO2. Policymakers can choose from options liketax credits, carbon tax or direct regulation as a condition of approval.
The mistaken idea that CCS is too expensive compared to otherclimate change mitigation technologies is easily dispelled whena low value is placed on carbon. For example, the IEA has estimatedthat as much as 450 MtCO2 could be captured, utilised and stored
globally with a commercial incentive as low as USD40 per tonne ofCO2 by deploying CCS on the many low-cost opportunities available19.
This value is at the bottom end of the USD40-80 range that theHigh-Level Commission on Carbon Prices recommended by
2020 to drive transformational change consistent with meeting
Paris Agreement targets20, 21.
Compared to mature industries, there is relatively little experiencedeveloping commercial CCS facilities. As a consequence, potential
investors and financiers apply risk premiums which drive up the costof private capital (both debt and equity) to a level where investing isdifficult. In fact, very few CCS projects have been funded through debt
financing because prevailing risks—and perceived risks that arise frombanks’ lack of knowledge—make it difficult for them to qualify. Until
risks are perceived to be well managed, banks are unwilling to qualify
CCS projects for debt financing or offer competitive interest rates toproject developers. By working collaboratively with the private sector—
which is well placed to manage general project risks such as technical,
construction and operational performance risks—governments canplay a pivotal role in risk-sharing, enabling private sector investment.

COST OF DEBT

Robust policy frameworks can address market failures that lead to
hard-to-reduce risks, such as cross-chain, and long-term liability
risks. Government can de-risk investments by taking on risks thatcannot be borne by the private sector. While private sector investment
in CCS is profit-driven, government is motivated to provide public
goods. Government forgoes financial return on CCS investments, inexchange for efficient industry contributions towards emissions targets
and a stable climate for constituents. Cross-chain and liability risks
are therefore managed through the development of shared transportand storage networks, and robust legal and regulatory frameworks,
respectively.

16%

15%

Figure 9 (below) shows how government policy and confidence in
CCS can reduce the cost of debt over time. Initial CCS facilities aredeveloped under high risk conditions, due to the existence of weakpolicy frameworks and few CCS facilities being in operation, so thecost of debt is at its highest.
As more facilities enter operation, and better policy frameworks
evolve, the cost of debt is reduced. Eventually a low risk lending rate,
representative of a mature industry, is reached.
To explore further detail on policy priorities for policymakers and how
to stimulate investment in CCS, download our 2019 Thought Leadership
Report Policy priorities to incentivise large scale deployment of CCS at
globalccsinstitute.com

ESG AND DIRECTORS’ DUTIES
A company’s attitude towards environmental, social and corporate
governance (ESG) factors, is an increasingly significant consideration
for investors, shareholders and the wider public. There is closer
scrutiny and reporting of ESG factors that are material to a business’s
core activities. While companies are increasingly willing to adopt
more sustainable practices, their openness has also been driven
by the rise of socially-conscious investment, the concept of the‘enlightened shareholder’ and increased public activism surrounding
environmental, social and governance issues.
In recent years, the ‘environmental’ aspects of corporate governancehave increased in importance, with climate change and carbon risk
exposure becoming the most pressing considerations. In organisations
with a significant CO2 footprint, investors and shareholders are offereddetailed information about matters like exposure to climate change
impacts and carbon risk, how these will be adapted to, strategies foraddressing greenhouse gas and any new commercial opportunities
that have been identified to reduce the business impacts.
Reporting against sustainability and environmental performancemeasures has moved from being largely voluntary to necessary.

POLICY

14%

CONFIDENCE

12%

10%

POLICY

10%

CONFIDENCE

8%MATURE
INDUSTRY
10%

6%
4%
2%
0%
HIGH RISKLENDINGIRREDUCIBLE
RISKS

GENERAL
PROJECT

FIGURE 9 THE EVOLUTION OF ILLUSTRATIVE LENDING RATESWITH POLICY DE-RISKING AND INCREASED DEPLOYMENT RATESFOR CCS FACILITIES

25

MODERATE
RISK LENDING

IRREDUCIBLE
RISKS

GENERAL
PROJECTLOW RISKLENDINGCCS Ambassador
ESG disclosures and investment decisions are increasingly partof financial reporting obligations. Some suggest there is now a clear
link between a company’s ESG performance and its ability to leverage
capital, including the cost of that capital.

ZOË KNIGHTManaging Director & Group Head,HSBC Centre of Sustainable FinanceExperience shows that failure to adopt a pragmatic approach toenvironmental performance and climate change impacts, may resultin direct and indirect risks for a company. The burgeoning divestment
movement is one example, where the views of shareholders and thewider public have been made very clear to companies perceived as
high-risk investments, or as failing to address their carbon footprint.
Potential harm to a company’s reputation is an importantconsideration, but there may be more significant implications fororganisations that don’t meet expectations in regard to climate change
mitigation. In recent years, resolutions have been brought against
corporations by shareholder groups seeking to ensure that companies
adapt their practices to the realities of a carbon constrained future. In
some instances, shareholders even brought formal legal proceedings
against company directors.
Adopting low-carbon technologies will be an important solution
for many organisations seeking to address public and investor-led
perceptions of their activities, and meet shareholder challenges.
CCS offers a potent opportunity for those with significant CO2
exposure, to demonstrate their management of the issue and improve
how they are regarded. Increasingly, major companies are choosing
to invest in CCS technology, demonstrating commitment to CO2
reduction as part of their long-term risk management strategies.
CCS is likely to play an increasingly large role in companies’ ESG
commitments.

TASK FORCE CLIMATE-RELATED FINANCIALDISCLOSURES (TCFD) – DEFINING A
UNIVERSAL APPROACH TO DISCLOSINGTHE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Formed by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in 2015, the
TCFD sought to develop a framework to help organisations
disclose the financial impact of climate change on theiroperations. The FSB required the disclosures developed by
the TCFD, to “promote more informed investment, credit [orlending], and insurance underwriting decisions” and, in turn,“enable stakeholders to understand better the concentrationsof carbon-related assets in the financial sector and the financial
system’s exposures to climate-related risks.”
The recommendations, published in 2017, should assist
companies to identify and disclose key financial informationthat helps the wider finance and investment community better
understand climate-related risks and opportunities. The
recommendations focus on four areas:••••

In order to meet the net-zero emissions
ambition, a diverse set of clean energy
technologies is required. CCS' crucial role
to delivering emissions reductions has been
underscored by the IPCC, the UK Committeeon Climate Change, the IEA just to name a few.
With the need to scale up to more than 2,000
facilities by 2040 we also have no time to lose.
While the flow of funding towards new lowcarbon technologies is increasing, it is not
happening at the pace that is needed. As withrenewables when they were in early stages of
deployment, targeted public sector signals of
support for the industry would help accelerate
the market for CCS.

“WITH THE NEED TOSCALE UP TO MORE
THAN 2,000 FACILITIESBY 2040 WE ALSO HAVENO TIME TO LOSE.”

governancestrategyrisk management
metrics and targets.

The TCFD’s recommendations have been adopted by manyorganisations worldwide. In May 2019 Chair, Michael
Bloomberg, reported that nearly 800 public and private-sector
organizations now support the task force and its work. This
includes global financial firms responsible for assets exceeding$118 trillion.

26

3.0 Global Status of CCS
3.3 Global CO2 Storage Overview

3.3
GLOBAL CO2 STORAGE OVERVIEW
Global estimates show there are vast storage
resources to meet the highest requirements
for CCS to achieve climate change targets.

200

200-430

NORTH
SEA

300

2,000-21,000
1-5
5-30

100

5-25

47-63
2,000
2-228
150

HIGH CONFIDENCE
MEDIUM CONFIDENCELOW CONFIDENCE
VERY LOW CONFIDENCE

FIGURE 10 GLOBAL STORAGE RESOURCE
ESTIMATES (GIGATONNE) AROUND THE WORLD22

27

3

TIME TO FOCUS ON GIGATONNE CO2 STORAGE
To meet climate targets, the IPCC climate pathways model up to 1,200
Gt of CO2 cumulatively stored by 210023. There is high confidence
that vast CO2 storage resources are available globally to meet thesescenarios. The IEA forecasts that 2.3 Gt of CO224 must be stored eachyear, by 2060. It means a CCS deployment rate of more than double tothat of the growth of the oil industry during the last century25.
To achieve multi-gigatonne annual CO2 storage rates, the world willneed to characterise, appraise and develop thousands of individualstorage sites. The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG)26
estimates that approximately 30-60 storage sites need developing eachyear until 2050. Adding negative emissions storage, from 2050 and
2,100, that number could double. The good news is that the history ofoil and gas shows what can be achieved when there is a business case.
According to the IEAGHG:

1,210-4,130• 350 gas and oil fields were developed annually in the peakdevelopment period (2000-2010)• since 1940, commercial gas resources were discovered at a rateequal to the required rate of development for CO2 storage resources• the number of rigs (used to drill for exploration and CO2 injection
wells) required to develop CO2 storage sites is only 20 per centof the total rig count.

100 140

9

12
140

23

Recognising the importance of CCS to meeting emission reduction
targets, several countries have implemented initiatives to identify
CO2 storage sites:

7220-410• The US is identifying a series of sites which could store
50Mt or more of CO2• Norway and UK both completing significant public
databases of CO2 storage formations across the North Sea• EU nations producing a storage formation-scale atlas• Australia undertaking site-scale evaluations with seismicand core analysis around the country• Japan completing an offshore drilling campaign to test
CO2 storage formations.

1628

3.0 Global Status of CCS
3.3 Global CO2 Storage Overview

MONITORING IS CRITICAL TO ENSURE THATCOMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS ARE METsuch as tracers, and geophysical logging tools are also employed.
Collectively, these downhole tools can provide high-resolution
conformance and verification of the CO2.

Monitoring, measurement and verification (MMV) play a vital role inensuring CO2 storage meets operational, regulatory and community
expectations. CO2 storage uses MMV technologies and the experienceof the oil, gas, and groundwater industries. The key focus of a CO2
MMV programme is tracking the CO2, pressure field, and thesurrounding geology around the storage formation. Groundwater andsurface monitoring are also common place in most MMV programmes.

The primary driver for surface monitoring is to meet community
expectations. In an appropriate well-characterised site, the likelihoodof CO2 reaching the surface is diminishingly small. Hence, surface
monitoring primarily focuses around boreholes (legacy or operational)
that provide the only direct path from the storage formation to thesurface. Geochemical analysis measures soil or surface water forelevated CO2 levels. In the offshore, geochemical sampling is also
employed, along with bubble detection systems and sonar to identify
potential leaks. The automation of sampling is decreasing costs andthe physical footprint of monitoring.

Seismic imaging is the most commonly used method to ensure theplume is behaving as expected. With repeated 3D seismic, undercertain conditions, a plume can be tracked as it moves throughthe storage formation. Passive seismic and downhole seismic are
increasingly being employed to minimise the footprint and cost of
Storage environments and technology
deployment and long-term monitoring.
Pressure monitoring is one of the oldest downhole-based technologies.
By measuring the pressure of the formation, an operator can confirm
the containment of CO2. Any shift in pressure may indicate a change
in conditions. Also, monitoring the pressure of surrounding formations
can rapidly detect if the CO2 does move out of the storage formation.
Along with pressure monitoring, a suite of geochemical testing,During the first wave of CO2 storage operations, risk-assessment
based MMV programmes demonstrated to regulators and stakeholders
that CO2 storage is predictable and permanent. In many cases, thenumber of tools operators use to prove conformance and verify theCO2 is gradually being reduced. The cost of MMV is reducing as thecommunity understand the low risk of CO2 storage, and tools andtechniques become more sophisticated.

1
3

2

2

800m

1

1

2

1 1.

22.

1
Atmosphere
ATMOSPHERE
AirborneEM
AIRBORNE
EM
Airborne
spectral
AIRBORNE
SPECTRAL
Satellite
interferometry
SATELLITEINTERFEROMETRY
SURFACE
Surface
2
EDDY COVARIANCE
Eddy covariance
SURFACEGAS FLUX
Surfacegas flux
SOIL GAS CONCENTRATIONS
Soil gas concentrations
GROUND WATER CHEMISTRY

Ground water chemistry23.

SURFACE
SurfaceSEISMIC
32D/3D
SURFACE2D/3D surface seismic
LAND EM/ERT
Land
EM/ERT
SURFACEGRAVIMETRY
Surface gravimetry
TILTMETERS

Tiltmeters

Sub-surface
11. 1 SUB-SURFACE
Downholefluidchemistry
DOWNHOLE
FLUID
CHEMISTRY
Downhole
pressure
DOWNHOLE
PRESSURE
Downhole
temperature
DOWNHOLE
TEMPERATURE
Geophysical
GEOPHYSICSLOGSlogs

Offshore
11. 1 OFFSHORE
Boomer/Sparker
profiling
BOOMER/SPARKERPROFILING
Bubblestreamdetection
BUBBLESTREAM
DETECTION
Multi-echosoundings
MULTI-ECHOSOUNDINGS
Sidescansonar
SIDESCAN
SONAR

22.

22.

2

SUB-SURFACE
Sub-surface
CROSS-HOLE
EM EM
Cross-hole
CROSS-HOLE ERTCross-hole ERTCROSS-HOLE SEISMIC
Cross-hole seismic
MICROSEISMIC
Microseismic
VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING
Vertical seismic profiling
WELL GRAVIMETRY

OFFSHORE
Offshore
04
SEABOTTOM GASPageSAMPLING
Seabottom gas
sampling
SEAWATER GEOCHEMISTRY
Seawatergeochemistry
SEABOTTOM SEISMIC
Seabottom seismic
SEABOTTOM EMEM

ELECTROMAGNETICEM

right colum
below).

ERT ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE TOMOGRAPHYElectromagnetic

1.2.1.3/

Seabottom EM

Well gravimetry

FIGURE 11 A SCHEMATIC OF SELECT MONITORINGTECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR CO2 STORAGE FACILITIES
29

2

ERT Electrical Resistance Tomography

A

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY PRODUCTIONPERMANENTLY STORES CO2
Over 260 million tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 has been injected
and permanently stored to date—most through enhanced oil
recovery (EOR). Increasing oil production this way is a standard,mature and routine global operation. It is important to emphasisethat CO2 – EOR is not suitable for every oil field. But where CO2
is suitable to enhance oil recovery the process is as follows:
1. CO2 is injected into the oil field’s rock formations where
it behaves as a solvent, swelling the oil and mobilising oil
previously trapped in the rock’s pore spaces.
2. A proportion of the CO2 migrates through the formation as a
CO2 plume, known as free phase CO2. As more CO2 is exposedto the rock, it dissolves into surrounding brine. Some becomes
immovably trapped in the pore spaces—residual trapping. Thesesame trapping mechanisms occur during dedicated storage.

CO2

3. A mixture of oil, brine, and other fluids brings the remaining
CO2 to the surface. The CO2 is separated from these fluids,
compressed and re-injected into the oil field with additional
CO2, creating a closed loop with trivial fugitive emissions.
CO2 is the most expensive operational cost of any CO2-EOR facility,
so almost every molecule supplied is re-injected. The high costof CO2 means the gas is monitored at the surface and within thereservoir to ensure optimal use. Ultimately, all the CO2 injected into
an oil field for EOR remains trapped in the pore space that originallyheld the oil and other fluids.
The permanent storage of CO2 through EOR delivers emissions
abatement. The IEA estimates that during conventional EOR
operations, there is an emissions abatement on a full lifecycle
basis. This includes emissions from using the oil produced27.
If policy incentives are put in place, industry will store evenmore CO2 this way, beyond what the optimising process requires.

CO2

CO2

Injected CO2

Purchased CO2

Recycled CO2

Anthropogenic and/or
other natural sources

From production well

Zone of Efficient Sweep (minimum 1000m)

ZOOM
ONE

CO2 stored
permanently
CO2 stored inpore space

ZOOM
ONE

Free Phase

ZOOM
TWO

Driver
water

CO2

Water

Residual Trapping

ZOOM
THREE

MiscibleZone

Oil Bank

Dissolution Trapping
Caprock

Caprock

ZOOM
THREE

CO2

ZOOM
TWO

Additional
Oil Recovery

ZOOM
THREE

Mineral Trapping
Caprock

CO2

Page 05

3.9.2/ Emissions Sources and Mitigation Options in Industry

CO2

Full Page width;

FIGURE 12 SCHEMATIC OF CO2 EOR AND CO2
TRAPPING MECHANISMS
30

3.0 Introduction
CCS Ambassadors

DEEPIKA NAGABHUSHAN
Program Director,
Decarbonized Fossil Energy
Clean Air Task ForceIn the two years since the U.S. Congress passed amilestone CCUS incentive, 45Q tax credit, a numberof projects have initiated development. In the same
period, an interesting theme has emerged: states
and utilities have set themselves goals to havecarbon-free electricity.
States such as California and New York havecommitted to achieving zero-carbon powersystems. Utilities that provide over 40 per centof US electricity have committed to reducing
their CO2 emissions between 80 to 100 per cent.
CCUS will not only play an important role infulfilling above commitments, but also help
meeting even bolder goals that will include
decarbonizing industrial emissions and leveraging
zero-carbon fuels. This creates implications onfederal and state governments to enact additional
CCUS enabling policies.
First, we need cheaper capture technologies thatare faster to build. This requires federal funding
to support transformational technology researchand development.
Second, we need financial incentives tocommercially deploy CCUS. This will leadto multiple technology vendors providing
standardized components, reducing custom
engineering needs and banks that are familiar
enough with CCUS to readily finance projects.

31“IF WE MEET THESE
CATEGORIES OF CCGOALS, THEN WE W
HAVE A CHANCE T
MID-CENTURY CLIM
THAT IS WHAT IS A
Third, we need to expand the network of CO2
pipelines and storage sites such that CO2 capture
projects can easily connect to it, much like acommercial laundromat would connect to theexisting water and sewage lines.
Finally, broader climate policies such as
procurement mandates, emission caps andenergy standards must embrace CCUS,
promoting wide-scale deployment.
If we meet these four categories of CCUS policy
goals, then we will at least have a chance to meet
our mid-century climate goals. That is what is
at stake.

PROFESSOR MICHAELGERRARD
Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice,
Columbia Law School

E FOURCUS POLICYWILL AT LEAST
TO MEET OUR
MATE GOALS.
AT STAKE.”
Deepika Nagabhushan
Program Director,
Decarbonized Fossil Energy
Clean Air Task ForceThe report from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change comparing worlds with 1.5 vs.
2.0 degrees Celsius increases on global averagetemperatures made it clear that a massive amountof carbon dioxide must be removed from theatmosphere if we are to avoid the worst impactsof climate change. Other recent reports have cometo similar conclusions. Removing the carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere is only part of thestory, however. We must do something with it –either utilize it or sequester it.
Thus carbon sequestration is one essential
component of addressing the climate crisis.
While the ideal method is to reduce emissions,and everything possible must be done to achieve
that, this still will not be enough. Moreover, there
are several massive industries, such as cement
and steel production, that emit carbon dioxide inmassive amounts; until technological alternatives
are developed and widely applied, it will benecessary to capture and then utilize or store theemissions from these industries as well.
Carbon sequestration poses numerous
technological, financial, legal and logisticalchallenges; these must all be overcome if it isto proceed at the massive scale that is required.

32

3.0 Global Status of CCS
3.4 Legal and Regulatory Overview

3.4
LEGAL ANDREGULATORY OVERVIEW
Policy makers and project proponents agree that practical, welldefined legislation and a strong global regulatory framework arenecessary for CCS to reach its potential. The US state of California’s
CCS Protocol which accompanies the Low Carbon Fuel Standard(See section 4.2 Regional overview: Americas), has allowed thedevelopment of a regulatory model that addresses the requirementsof operators, and wider public concerns. Generally though, progresscontinues to be slow. Several jurisdictions are yet to even examine theirlegal frameworks and in some existing regimes, movement is limited,
continuing the uncertainty for those seeking to invest in CCS.
In recent months, the most notable legal and regulatory development
is a proposal to address a key barrier found in international marine
agreements. Article 6 of the London Protocol governs the Parties’
export of wastes for dumping in the marine environment. An
unintended consequence of this Protocol is that it effectively banstransboundary transportation of CO2 for geological storage. The
signatories to the London Protocol passed an amendment to resolve
this issue in 2009, however two thirds of the Protocol's contracting
parties must ratify the amendment for it to come into force. So far only
Norway, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Finland, Estonia and Iranhave done so. At the London Convention meeting in early October, theParties of the London Protocol agreed to allow provisional applicationof the 2009 amendment of Article 6 to the London Protocol allowing
for cross-border transport and export of CO2 for geological storage in
sub-seabed geological formations.
Adopting the resolution will not set a precedent and will only bebinding upon those Parties that choose to be provisionally bound by
the amendment. If the Parties accept the interim solution, there willbe legal certainty about cross-border CO2 transport for CCS climate
emissions mitigation. Our analysis of potential ‘hot-spots’ for activity
within the scope of Article 6, are set out in Figure 13 (opposite). The
hot-spots represent locations where transboundary storage is likely
because a nation has limited storage potential, but neighbouring
jurisdictions can store CO2 on their behalf. As seen from Figure 13,
there are multiple opportunities for transboundary shipment of CO2
worldwide, especially in Europe and Asia.
The current status of some forms of CO2 transportation underEuropean legislation, also remains uncertain. Amendments havebeen made to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS) Directive to include CO2 capture, transport by pipelines andthe geological storage of CO2 within its scope of activities. Covered
installations are not required to surrender emissions allowances for
the CO2 they have successfully captured for subsequent transportation
by pipelines and geological storage, and they can benefit from the
EU ETS carbon price. The scope of the Directive, however, applies
narrowly to CO2 transport by pipelines and those installations thatplan to transport CO2 by other means, e.g. by ships or trucks, would
still need to pay for these emissions. The legislation as it currently
stands, therefore poses a regulatory barrier to those projects that wish
to transport CO2 through different means (e.g. trains and barges).

33

IS IT TIME TO ADOPT A NEW
APPROACH TO LIABILITY?
Liability is often raised by policymakers, regulators and project
proponents as a potential barrier to widespread CCS deployment.
It continues to be an issue globally, despite the adoption of various
detailed CCS-specific frameworks in recent years. Our Thought
Leadership Report examined the issue through policy andlegislative analysis and interviews with policymakers, regulators,
lawyers, project proponents and insurance sector representatives.
The report — Lessons and Perceptions: Adopting a Commercial
Approach to CCS Liability — concluded that effort must be made todispel the widely-held view that liability could be a ‘showstopper’for the technology, and to give the public and private sectors
greater confidence that it can be managed. Adopting a morecommercial approach will ultimately see a shift in focus fromhigh-level concerns, towards identifying successful practices andmodels, as well as eliminating the remaining obstacles to morewidespread deployment.
The following actions are central to a more commercial approach:• Clearly determine what is meant by the term liability. While
there are potentially a wide range of liabilities applicable to
CCS operations throughout the project lifecycle, their impact
differs greatly when considered individually.
• Examine options for addressing greenhouse emissions/climate
liabilities, which present unique challenges to both operatorsand regulators alike.
• Consider the role of both government and the private sector
in allocating and managing risks and consequently liability.
Experience to-date reveals that there are options which may
reduce parties’ exposure and support project deployment.
• Renewed engagement with the insurance sector. Timely
and more regular engagement will be necessary if insurers
are to develop new products to assist operators manage theirpotential liabilities.
• Ensure a close and robust dialogue, between project
proponents and regulators. Experience demonstrates thatengagement has assisted both parties in determining thepractical requirements of legislation, or where there isambiguity in its application.
To download our report Lessons and Perceptions:
Adopting a Commercial Approach to CCS Liability
please visit globalccsinstitute.com

NORTH WESTERN EUROPE

MEDITERRANEANNORTH SEAEUROPEEUROPE
AFRICA

SOUTH EAST ASIA & OCEANIA

EAST ASIA

SOUTH
EAST
ASIA

SOUTH KOREA

JAPAN
CHINA

AUSTRALIAPOTENTIAL STORAGE LOCATIONS. THESE AREAS HAVEBEEN CHARACTERISED AS SUITABLE FOR CO2 STORAGE
AND ARE IDEALLY LOCATED IN THE OFFSHORE OR
ADJACENT TO THE COAST.
INDICATIVE OF TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIESNOTE: THE IDENTIFIED STORAGE LOCATIONS ARE NOTEXHAUSTIVE AND DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL STORAGE BASINSFIGURE 13 LEGAL HOT SPOTS: LOCATIONS WHERE
TRANSBOUNDARY STORAGE IS LIKELY
34

4.0
REGIONAL OVERVIEWS

35

1.0

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

INTRODUCTION
About Global CCS Institute
About the Report
Acronyms
CEO Foreword

2.0	MEETING THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE:
THE NEED FOR CCS
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS
Global CCS Facilities Update
Policy Levers for Accelerating Deployment
Global CO2 Storage Overview
Legal and Regulatory Overview

4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

REGIONAL OVERVIEWSInternational Climate Policy Overview
Americas
EuropeMiddle East and Central Asia
Asia Pacific5.0	CCS DEVELOPMENT:TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS
5.1
Natural Gas
5.2 Hydrogen
5.3
CCS in the Power Sector
5.4	Bioenergy with Carbon Captureand Storage (BECCS)
5.5
Direct Air Capture (DAC)
5.6 CO2 Utilisation
5.7 CCS Innovation
5.8 Industry’s Transition to a Net-zero Future
6.0

APPENDICES

7.0

REFERENCES

36

4.0 Regional Overviews
4.1 International Climate Policy Overview
The GCF is an excellent potential source of funding for new CCS
projects in developing countries because it allows project developers toaccess significant levels of funding at more affordable rates than would
otherwise be available.

4.1
SUPRANATIONAL
CLIMATE POLICYOVERVIEW
The role of CCS in climate change mitigation is highlighted in the
IPCC SR15 report and in a range of recent analyses and studies.
Several ongoing international processes are poised to have an impact
on CCS’s wider, global deployment. These include the pledges andcooperative approaches under the Paris Agreement, Green Climate
Fund (GCF) and carbon offsetting scheme for international aviation.
Under the Paris Agreement, Nationally Determined Contributions(NDCs) are the main opportunity for countries to highlight theircommitment to using CCS technology. So far, ten countries (Bahrain,
China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Malawi, Norway, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa and United Arab Emirates) have done so. CCS has near-term
relevance28 for an estimated 50-60 countries who are well-positioned
to use it over the coming decades. Some of these countries havepreviously shown strong interest in CCS, but did not include it in their
Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The Institute expects thatmany will over the next cycles.
Signatories to the Paris Agreement are invited to submit theirlong-term low-greenhouse-gas emission development strategies
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) by 2020. Ten out of the 13 strategies submitted as ofAugust 2019, include CCS29. As more are submitted, the Institute will
form a clearer picture of where CCS fits in the long-term emissions
reduction planning of countries and regions.
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement offers countries another option to
support wide scale deployment of CCS. Negotiations are underway
around co-operation between nations to fulfil their pledges throughjoint action, which would also bring down compliance costs. With
growing interest in CCS technologies, this approach may help toestablish CCS projects in developing countries.
The UNFCCC increasingly sees technology transfer as one of the key
mechanisms to achieve climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Their Technology Executive Committee’s work plan for the next four
years includes the “role of emerging technologies”. The Technology
Mechanism will look at improving access in developing nations, and
IEA has concluded that the largest deployment of CCS must occur in
non-OECD countries30. The GCF listed CCS as one of the technologies
to transform energy and industry, in their strategic programming
for the first replenishment. The replenishment process has had an
excellent start, with announcements from over a dozen of countries todouble their pledges and the total amount of the first replenishment
already exceeding the previous pledging conference in 2014.

ADOPTION OF THE
PARIS AGREEMENT

2015

FACILITATIVEDIALOGUECountries communicate
new or updated NDCs &long term strategies.

2017

2020

Climate plans submitted,
first round pledges(NDCs)UN Secretary General’s
Climate Summit.

June was a good month in politics for CCUS technologies. The
first success was being included in Karuizawa’s G20 Ministerial
Meeting on Energy Transitions and Global Environment for
Sustainable Growth communiqué, for the first time ever.
And then, the opportunities offered by CCUS technologies for theenergy transition were recognised within the official G20 Osaka
Leaders’ Declaration, following Japan’s hosting of the event. The
admittance of CCUS, as well as hydrogen, into the Declaration
marked another first.
The Declaration acknowledged, “the role of all energy sources
and technologies in the energy mix and different possible national
paths to achieve cleaner energy systems.” It stated that all G20
Leaders:... recognise opportunities offered by further development ofinnovative, clean and efficient technologies for energy transitions,
including hydrogen as well as, depending on national circumstances,
the Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS), taking note ofwork on ‘Carbon Recycling’ and ‘Emissions to Value’.
Signatories reaffirmed that they will, “communicate, update or
maintain our NDCs, taking into account that further global efforts
are needed (by 2020)” and emphasized, “the importance ofproviding financial resources to assist developing countries withrespect to both mitigation and adaptation in accordance with theParis Agreement.”
The Institute looks forward to more progress before the 2020 G20
summit in Riyadh.

2023

GLOBALSTOCKTAKE

NET ZEROEMISSIONSCountries communicate
new or updated NDCs.
New financial commitments due.

2024

2025

National inventory
report on NDCs.

FIGURE 14 PARIS AGREEMENT AMBITION MECHANISM31

37

CARBON, CAPTURE, UTILISATION AND
STORAGE (CCUS) RECOGNISED BY G20
LEADERS IN JAPANGLOBALSTOCKTAKE

Talanoa Dialogue& adoption of theParis rulebook.

2018

The International Civil Aviation Organization is currently developing
a Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International
Aviation (CORSIA). The scheme aims to stabilise the CO2 emissionsof international aviation at 2020 levels. The rulebook is still being
written, but airlines will need to offset their emissions by purchasing
international credits from other sectors, or taking actions themselves.
The CCS community will closely follow this industry because airlines
may purchase carbon credits from CCS projects or even develop
emission reduction projects of their own.

2028

2030
Countries communicate
new or updated NDCs.

2050

CCS Ambassadors

DR FATIH BIROLBERTRAND PICCARD

Executive Director,
International Energy Agency

Chair,
Solar Impulse Foundation

The IEA has consistently highlighted that CCUS is
critical to meeting our global climate goals. Last year,
global energy demand accelerated at its fastest pacethis decade, with fossil fuels meeting around 70 per
cent of this growth and contributing to a historic highfor energy-related CO2 emissions. In fact, for morethan 30 years, the share of fossil fuels in the world’s
energy mix has remained virtually unchanged ataround 81 per cent. CCUS is a necessary bridge
between the reality of today’s energy system and theincreasingly urgent need to reduce emissions. Not
only can it avoid locking in emissions from existing
power and industrial facilities, it also provides a
critical foundation for carbon removal or negativeemissions. But so far, the vast potential of CCUS
remains largely unrealised.

When I was spending holidays in the Swiss Alps
during the 60’s, all the residents of the village weretaking their garbage in their car to dump them ina valley where a little river was flowing. The waste
would burn day and night and produced smoke with ahorrible smell. But all this was completely legal. Why
don’t we do it anymore? Because today it’s prohibited.
The result of stopping people from throwing rubbish
into the valley and paying for its disposal was thecreation of new industries - waste collection, energy
recovery, recycling - that created jobs and profit.
Why is it then that companies can still dump as muchcarbon into the atmosphere as they wish? Why should
it be treated differently?
Today, we must correct this market failure. Putting
a price on carbon will provide incentives to capture,
reduce or eliminate harmful emissions. Doing so is
not adding a new tax, but merely correcting an oldinjustice, and will open the door to the market ofthe century - protection of the environment.

“CCUS IS A NECESSARY BRIDGE
BETWEEN THE REALITY OF
TODAY’S ENERGY SYSTEM AND
THE INCREASINGLY URGENTNEED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS.”
Dr. Fatih Birol
Executive Director,
International Energy Agency

38

4.0 Regional Overviews
4.2 Americas

4.2
AMERICASCCS FACILITIES IN THE AMERICAS

CO2 CAPTUREADVANCING CCSThis region is home to 13 of the world’s
19 large-scale operating CCS facilities.

These facilities combined capture 29.9 Million
tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of CO2 .

In this region, CCS deployment is supported
by strong policy frameworks, abundantgeological storage, diverse stakeholder
support and a wealth of private-sector
experience

CO2
2
10

IN CANADAIN UNITED STATES

29.9
Mtpa
NEW WAVE OF FACILITIES1IN BRAZIL

In 2019 the Global CCS Institute added 8 newlarge-scale facilities in the Americas to ourdatabase.

8 NEW

FACILITESACTIVE STATESKEY US POLICY

In the US, states that are active in CCS incentives
and progression are: California, Montana, Texas,
North Dakota, Louisiana and Wyoming.

WYOMINGNORTH DAKOTAMONTANA

Industrial sector
accounts for a further

22of US emissions.

Section 45Q of the Internal Revenue Codeestablishes tax credits for storage of CO2 .
Several CCS supportive bills wereintroduced in 2019 including the USE IT Act.

%

This includes ethanol or ammonia
production and natural gas processing,where CO 2 capture is at the low end of thecost scale, ideal targets for CCS.

California’s LCFS is a credit-based tradingmechanism applies to CCS projects thatlower the emissions intensity of fuels in
the California market.

CO2

STORAGETAX CREDITSREGIONAL DEVELOPMENTSCALIFORNIA

TEXAS

Clean Energy Ministerial held in Canada 2019.
Canada invested $25 million in Direct Air
Capture (DAC).

LOUISIANA$25M
INVESTEDUS EMISSIONS PROFILE AND THE POTENTIALFOR CCS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE…
Power sector accounts for 28% of the
US’s greenhouse gas emissions. In 2019,
the Institute added three power plant retrofits
to our Institute database. When operational
will capture up to a further 10.3 Mtpa of CO2 .

10.3
MtCO2
ADDED CAPTURE CAPACITYFROM COAL RETROFIT

39

CH4
Cement and steel production represent
further opportunities.

Brazil stored >3 Mtpa CO2. Stakeholder interestin advancing CCS use; in coal, natural gas power
plants, ethanol sector.

>3 Mtpa
CO2
World Bank CCS Trust Fund funding two CCS
pilot projects in Mexico; expected to proceedin early 2020.

The Americas are home to 13 of the world's large-scale operating
CCS facilities32. The region has advanced thanks to supportive policy
frameworks, abundant geological storage, diverse stakeholder support,
and a wealth of private-sector expertise. Notably, the United Statesof America (US) Congress continues a reinvigorated push toward
championing technology. In this environment which offers industry
the confidence to invest, CCS projects continue to roll-out, cementing
the region’s global position.
This was a year of multiple milestones:• The Shell Quest facility in Canada celebrated capturing its four
millionth tonne of CO2.
• Eight new facilities in the Americas were added to the Institute’s
database of large-scale CCS facilities, creating a total of ten projects
in various stages of development. There are many projects at
conceptualization stage; several will progress in coming years.
• Occidental Petroleum and Carbon Engineering announced thefirst large-scale direct air capture with carbon storage (DACCS)
project. With a capacity of 1 Mtpa, the project results from thepolicy confidence offered by the federal 45Q tax credit and a
CCS-Amendment to California’s LCFS.
• The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) indicated that it will
invest in (what will be) the US’s largest dedicated geologic storage
project – an ammonia production facility by Wabash Valley
Resources, storing 1.5 Mtpa of CO2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Section 45Q of the Internal Revenue Code establishes tax credits
for storage of CO2. Congress extended and increased these in 2018
so they provide for USD35 per tonne of CO2 permanently stored via
enhanced oil recovery and USD50 per tonne of CO2 stored geologically– if projects commence construction by 2024. Although seen as theworld’s most progressive CCS-specific incentive, Section 45Q is yet tobe formally implemented, creating ambiguity about which projects are
eligible. The Internal Revenue Service, tasked with implementation,sought comments from stakeholders in mid-2019 and a draft guidanceis expected by early 2020 at the latest. Stakeholders are seeking an
extension to the construction deadline.
The IPCC’s Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C inspired a shift inlawmakers' discourse, progressing the climate conversation to oneof debating solutions. Building on the passage of 45Q, several bills
were introduced in 2019. The Utilising Significant Emissions with
Innovative Technologies (USE IT) Act, a top priority for many CCS
advocates, would provide further clarity on CO2 infrastructure

TYPE OF CO2
STORAGE/USE

MINIMUM SIZE OF ELIGIBLE CARBONCAPTURE PLANT BY SIZE (KtCO2/YR)

permitting procedures and requirements. Other bills deal withmatters such as addressing emissions from natural gas power
plants and industrial facilities, and how to optimize incentive
structures and R&D programs.
California’s LCFS is a credit-based trading mechanism aiming fora 20 percent reduction in the intensity of the state’s transportation
fuels by 2030. Since January 2019, it has included a CCS protocol.
Recently trading at an average of USD194 per tonne of CO2, the credit
applies to CCS projects that lower the emissions intensity of fuels in
the California market. DACCS projects anywhere in the world areincluded, in recognition of the fact that CO2 concentration in theatmosphere is a transnational problem.
State-level action in the US has been plentiful. After California –historically regarded as the gold standard of climate policy – passed
its zero-carbon electricity mandate and carbon-neutrality by 2050
goal, other states followed. Six states33 now have 100 per cent carbonfree energy goals in their electricity markets. States like Montana,Louisiana, Texas, and North Dakota provide tax incentives for CCS
deployment, while others like Wyoming, are aiming to substantiallyprogress CCS.
The US, which leads the world in progressing CCS and looks set tocontinue in first place, has excellent opportunities for demonstrating
the versatility of CCS applications in both power and in industry:
1. The power sector accounts for 28 per cent of the US’s greenhousegas emissions34. About half of total new generation capacity
between now and 2050 will likely come from unabated fossilfired power35. These assets, expected to operate over a lifetime ofmore than 30 years are risking to lock-in CO2 emissions throughmid-century. Gas fleets are also young and growing, and retiring
nuclear, which provides more than 60 per cent36 of carbon free
power, will probably be replaced only partially by zero-carbon
resources. An analysis of 45Q has shown that it could spur retrofits
of coal and natural gas power plants; capturing 49 Mtpa37 by 2030.
CCS solutions in the United States will provide a blueprint for manyother countries to follow. In 2019, the Institute added four power
plant retrofits to our Institute database (CO2RE.CO).
2. The US industrial sector accounts for another 22 per cent of total
emissions. Some of these emissions stem from sources such as
ethanol or ammonia production, or natural gas processing, where
CO2 capture is at the low end of the cost scale38. These facilities
could be ideal targets for low-cost CCS commercialisation andtechnology optimisation. Cement and steel production are also
large CO2 emitters, and represent further opportunities.

RELEVANT LEVEL OF TAX CREDIT GIVEN
IN OPERATIONAL YEAR (USD/tCO2)

POWER
PLANT

OTHER
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITY

DIRECT AIR
CAPTURE

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 LATER

DEDICATEDGEOLOGICALSTORAGE

500

100

100

28

31

34

36

39

42

45

47

50

STORAGEVIA EOR

500

100

100

17

19

22

24

26

28

31

33

35

OTHER
UTILISATIONPROCESSES*

25

25

25

17

19

22

24

26

28

31

33

35

INDEX
LINKED*Each CO2 source cannot be greater than 500 ktCO2/yr. Any credit will only apply
to the portion of the converted CO2 that can be shown to reduce overall emissions.

FIGURE 15 45Q TAX CREDIT3940

4.0 Regional Overviews
4.2 Americas
APPLICATIONSIN OPERATION

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020 2021

CHEMICALPRODUCTIONILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL

HYDROGENPRODUCTIONGREATPLAINSFERTISLISER
PRODUCTION

AIR
PRODUCTSENID
FERTILISERINTEGRATED
MIDCONTINENT
HUB

LAKE
CHARLESMETHANOLACTL STURGEON

QUESTCOFFFEYVILLE

2022 2023 2024 2025+

ACTL AGRIUMWABASH

NATURAL GASPROCESSING
SHUTE
CREEK

PETROBRAS PRE-SALT

CENTURY PLANTTERRELL(FORMERLYVAL VERDE)LOST CABIN
POWER
GENERATIONCARBONSAFE ILLINOIS HUB*
BOUNDARY DAMPETRA NOVADRY FORKPROJECT TUNDRA= 1 Mtpa CO2 CIRCLE AREAPROPORTIONATE TO CAPACITY

IN OPERATION

IN CONSTRUCTION

FIGURE 16 APPLICATIONS OF CCS FACILITIES: AMERICAS*Size of the circle is proportional to the capture capacity of the facility.
Indicates the primary industry type of the facility among various options.

CANADA, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA
Interest in accelerating CCS deployment remains strong across theAmericas:• Canada's Government joined the ranks of BHP, Occidental
Petroleum and Chevron through investing $25 million in
the Canadian Direct Air Capture (DAC) company Carbon
Engineering through Canada's Strategic Innovation Fund.
• In Brazil, the Petrobras Santos Basin Pre-Salt Oil Field CCS has
been separating CO2 onsite as part of natural gas processing since2013 and is now storing 3 Mtpa. The captured CO2 is injected
direct into the Lula, Sapinhoá and Lapa oil fields for enhanced oil
recovery. Stakeholders are keen to speed up CCS use; mainly incoal and natural gas power plants, but also in the ethanol sector.
• With funding from the World Bank CCS Trust Fund, two CCS
pilot projects are progressing in Mexico. The CO2 Capture Pilot
Project (CCPP) and the CO2 EOR and Storage Pilot Project (CESP).
Significant planning and scoping have been completed and the
projects are expected to proceed in early 2020.
The potential convergence of industry, transport and energy policies
under the umbrella of comprehensive climate action, is driving
government initiatives and policy innovation that supports CCS.
The focus must now be on these policies, and their ability to deliversteel in the ground.
Above: Petra Nova Carbon
Capture, United States of America;
right: Quest Facility, Canada.
Photo courtesy of Shell.
41

ADVANCED DEVELOPMENTDIRECT AIR
CAPTUREPROJECTSCCS AT OIL & GAS
PRODUCTION
FACILITIESCCS AT
REFINERIESPROJECTSALL OTHER CCS
PROJECTS (E.G.
CCS WITH ETHANOL)LOCATION OF
CCS PROJECT

Anywhere in the world

Anywhere, provided theysell the transportation fuel in
California

Anywhere, provided theysell the transportation fuel in
California

Anywhere, provided they sell
the transportation fuelin California

STORAGE SITE

Onshore saline or depleted oil and gas resevoirs, or oil and gas resevoirs used for CO2 EOR

CREDIT METHOD

Project-based

Project-based under theInnovative Crude Provision

Project-based under the
Refinery Investment Credit
Program

Project-based or fuel pathwayEARLIETS DATE WHICH
EXISTING PROJECTSELIGIBLE

Any

2010

2016

Any

REQUIREMENTS

Project must meet requirements specified in the CCS protocol

ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS

None

None

None

Must acheive minimum
CI or emission reduction

FIGURE 17 DIFFERENT TYPES OF CCS PROJECTS THAT CANQUALIFY TO GENERATE CREDITS UNDER THE CALIFORNIANLOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD40

CCS Ambassador

NEWTON B. JONES
President,International Brotherhood of Boilermakers

CCUS is the global answer to climate change.
It is the only solution that can truly mitigate climatechange and provide reliable energy production
through a realistic mix of renewables and natural
resources—all while preserving and creating jobs,
economic growth and social stability.

“[CCUS] IS THE ONLY
SOLUTION THAT CAN TRULYMITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE
AND PROVIDE RELIABLE
ENERGY PRODUCTION
THROUGH A REALISTICMIX OF RENEWABLES AND
NATURAL RESOURCES.”

While CCUS is finally gaining limited awareness,
we’re not yet scratching the surface on the volume
of mainstream attention needed to scale up support
from legislators who can ensure government policies
and incentives are in place to expedite industry
CCUS investments.
The urgency to bring viable CCUS projects tolife is now, and the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers is fully committed to raising ourcollective voices to advocate for CCUS as the bridge
to a cleaner energy future and the right solution tosave our way of life and our planet.
424.0 Regional Overviews
4.3 Europe

4.3
EUROPECCS FACILITIES IN EUROPE
2 large scale CCS facilities in operationin Norway, capturing and storing
1.7 million tonnes per annum of CO2.

10 large scale CCS facilities in various stages ofdevelopment (6 in the UK, 2 in the Netherlands,
1 in Norway, 1 Ireland). When operational, thesefacilities will capture:

1.7 Mtpa
of CO220.8 Mtpa
of CO2UK

Netherlands Norway

CCS facilities in operation and development acrosscement, power generation, waste-to-energy andhydrogen production.

Ireland

H

2

STORAGEPOLICY

Europe has over 300 gigatonnes (Gt) of
CO2 geological storage space available.*

CCS is one of the seven building blocks in theEuropean Commission's vision for a climate
neutral Europe by 2050.

3

CCS

GIGATONNES

2050

CCS contribution in strategy ranges from 52 to
606 MtCO2 per year in 2050— a strong casefor CCS in supporting Europe’s path to a climate
neutral economy.

606
52
MtCO2 MtCO2

FINANCEThe Innovation Fund; largest fund available forfinancing CCS in Europe – 10 billion euros are
hoped to be made available**

EU taxonomy for sustainable investments canplay an important role to advance CCS.

€10B
HUBS AND CLUSTERS
Most CCS projects in Europe are now planned as
hubs and clusters.

CCS

Capturing CO2 from clusters of industrial
installations, instead of single sources, and using
shared infrastructure for the subsequent CO2transportation and storage network, will drive
down unit costs across the CCS value chain.

CLUSTER*High confidence**Based on a €22 carbon price when 450 million EU Emission Trading Systemallowances are auctioned in 2020-30
43

$

$

In November 2018, the European Commission (EC) published its
vision for a climate neutral Europe by 2050 in “A Clean Planet for
all - A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern,competitive and climate neutral economy41.” CCS is one of sevenbuilding blocks in the strategy, and in the various scenarios put
forward, its contribution ranges from 52 to 606 MtCO2 per year in
2050— a strong case for CCS in supporting Europe’s path to a climate
neutral economy. The strategy’s scenarios rely on CCS mainly forindustrial decarbonisation, delivering negative emissions through
BECCS and producing low-carbon hydrogen.
Discussion around Europe’s 2050 target has shifted from “if” to“how” climate neutrality will be delivered. This change has sparked
renewed interest in CCS as one emission reduction technology
needed in a portfolio of climate solutions. The EU’s long-term strategy
should be adopted in the coming months, before it is submitted to the
UNFCCC in early 2020 as requested under the Paris Agreement.
Under the Governance of the Energy Union Regulation, EU Member
States developed their draft National Energy and Climate Plans(NECPs) for 2021-2030. Each country took a close look at their energy
and climate targets together, breaking down silos and mapping theirpathway to meet the 2030 targets. While CCS is reflected in many
NECPs, details about how, and on what scale, these technologies will
be deployed, are often not provided. The final versions of NECPs,
due by the end of 2019, should reflect all ongoing and/or planned
activities, as well as highlighting where CCS ought to be used becauseof its strong potential to deliver emission reductions.
The latest EU ETS review, finalised in 2018, strengthened the Market
Stability Reserve (the mechanism to reduce the surplus of emission
allowances) and increased the pace of emissions cuts. The overall
number of emission allowances will decline at an annual rate of 2.2

per cent from 2021 onwards, compared to 1.74 per cent currently.
This review has delivered a stronger carbon price, which has been
fluctuating around 25 EUR for most of 2019. Another element added
during the 2018 revision, setting up the 10-billion EUR Innovation
Fund, has been progressing well and several CCS projects will be readyto tap into its resources.
Aside from climate and energy policy, there is a major developmentin the field of sustainable finance in Europe, which can help direct
financial flows towards wider deployment of CCS. The EU taxonomy
for sustainable investments42, currently being negotiated between theCouncil of the EU, the European Parliament and the EC, will create acommon language for all actors in the financial system, steering public
and private capital toward sustainable investments. The technicalreport on EU Taxonomy43 sets technical screening criteria for activities
that can make an important contribution to climate change mitigation.
CCS is highlighted under several activities. If the technical criteria
and the outcome of political negotiations follows the current path, thetaxonomy can become a strong driver for institutional investment in
CCS across the EU and, potentially, globally.
Norway, United Kingdom and the Netherlands are already strong
supporters of CCS, and the number of countries showing interest inthese technologies continues to increase. Most notably, Germany istalking about CCS again with Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmingin May 2019 that Germany must reach climate neutrality by midcentury. Three CCS facilities currently in development – Net Zero
Teesside, UK; Port of Rotterdam (PORTHOS), Netherlands; andATHOS (Belgium/Netherlands) – consider Germany to be one of their
CO2 sources in future expansion phases of their projects44.

INNOVATION FUND
The Innovation Fund is the largest fund available for financing
CCS in Europe. It finances innovative low-carbon technologies andprocesses in energy intensive industries, CCUS, renewable energy
and energy storage projects. Ten billion euros are hoped to be madeavailable, based on a €22 carbon price when 450 million EU ETS
allowances are auctioned in 2020-30.
Innovation Fund grants can be combined with other funding
sources; for example, with EU instruments like Horizon Europe
or Connecting Europe Facility, with national programmes, or withprivate capital.

GRANT AWARDFEASABILITY
STUDY

FINANCIAL CLOSEFEEDUp to 40 per cent of grant payments will be given in the
project preparation phase, based on pre-defined milestones.
The remaining 60 per cent, linked to innovation, are based onverified emissions avoidance outcomes and can continue for up
to 10 years. The fund’s simplicity, flexibility, increased synergies
and streamlined governance are a result of lessons learned fromits predecessor, NER300 programme.
The first call for proposals will be made in 2020, with regular calls
expected thereafter. Several planned CCS facilities are already well
positioned to submit proposals.

ENTRY INTO OPERATIONPROJECT MILESTONESCONSTRUCTION

3-10YRSANNUAL INSTALLMENTSREPORTINGPERIOD

Up to 40% payment

At least 60% payment

Not-depending on verified
emissions avoidance

Depending on verified
emissions avoidance

FIGURE 18 DISBURSEMENTS BASED ON MILESTONES45

44

4.0 Regional Overviews
4.3 Europe
Beyond the two operating projects in Norway, the full-scale projectin Norway and PORTHOS in the Netherlands are the most advanced
European CCS projects under development. Both are expected to reach
final investment decision in 2020-21 and could operate as soon as2023-24. They offer open access transport and storage infrastructure
and, in the last year, had discussions with regional emitters with aninterest to use this shared infrastructure. Third party CO2 storageis an increasingly attractive business opportunity.
Other European projects are in varying stages of development:• In October, the ATHOS project – a consortium of Gasunie, Energie
Beheer Nederland B.V. (EBN), Port of Amsterdam and Tata Steel– finalised their feasibility study in the North Sea canal area. They
showed that a CCUS network is technically feasible and that it could
help companies in the area reduce their emissions by 7.5 MtCO2
per year by2030.
• The UK’s Teesside cluster gained the support of OGCI Climate
Investments. A commercial scale gas-powered power plant
equipped with CCS, it is expected to be the anchor project
for the cluster, now named Net Zero Teesside.
• Pilot testing of C-Capture’s amine free capture technology was
performed at the UK’s largest 3.8GW power station, Drax46.
By capturing emissions from biomass combustion, this important
project could deliver negative emissions at scale. Drax, Equinor
and National Grid Ventures announced in May 2019 that they plan
to develop a net zero CCS and hydrogen cluster in the surrounding
Humber region, called Zero Carbon Humber.
Existing and developing European projects rely on offshore CO2
storage, avoiding public opposition to onshore storage. Several plan
to re-use oil and gas infrastructure; improving project economics andutilising well understood geological features. The Ervia Cork CCS
project in Ireland, for example, is expected to use the depleted Kinsale
area offshore gas fields and infrastructure to store CO2 produced by
two combined cycle gas turbines and nearby industry.
Hydrogen is playing an increasingly important role in the strategies
of European countries who want to decarbonise key sectors liketransport, industrial processes and domestic heat. Several CCS
projects incorporate the production of hydrogen through steam
methane reforming of natural gas, while capturing and storing
the associated CO2. The Acorn CCS and hydrogen project at the
St Fergus Gas terminal in Scotland is a notable initiative. Around35 per cent of all UK natural gas comes onshore at St Fergus,
providing an ideal location for blending hydrogen into thenational grid and decarbonising natural gas47.

Sleipner field drone 2019, Norway.
Photo courtesy of Equinor.
45

HUBS AND CLUSTERS IN EUROPE48
The way CCS projects are planned in Europe has changed
considerably during the last decade. The focus used to be
on building full chain solutions where one source of emissions
would build their own transportation pipeline to their storagesite. Now, most projects are planned as hubs and clusters.
Capturing CO2 from clusters of industrial installations,instead of single sources, and using shared infrastructure
for the subsequent CO2 transportation and storage network,
will drive down unit costs across the CCS value chain.
Keeping a network open for third party CO2 deliveries,
increases economies of scale. Using a mix of transportation
including pipelines and ships – but also trains and trucks– offers flexibility and accessibility to a wider range of
CO2 sources around the industrial clusters. Several majorindustrial regions are planning CCS cluster development:• Netherlands – Port of Rotterdam and Port of Amsterdam• Belgium – Port of Antwerp• UK – Humber and Teesside.
The Ruhr industrial cluster in Germany is expected tobenefit from the CCS projects developed across theborder in the Netherlands.
A dedicated multi-partner ALIGN-CCUS project aims49
to contribute to the transformation of six European industrial
regions into economically robust, low-carbon centres by 2025.
The project will create blueprints for developing low-emission
industry clusters through CCUS and assess commercial
models for CO2 cluster developments, including public-private
partnerships.
The regulatory barrier of non-pipeline CO2 transport under
EU ETS will need to be addressed in the next couple of years
for Europe to fully benefit from the economies of scale offeredby hubs and clusters (see section 3.4 for more information).

Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Photo courtesty of The Port of Rotterdam Authority.

In September, the Norwegian Government hosted a high-level
CCS conference in Oslo, together with the European Commission.
During the event Equinor, on behalf of the Northern Lights partners,
signed agreements to develop value chains in CCUS with:

NORWAY CONTINUES TO ADVANCEITS EUROPEAN CCS AMBITION
A leading country in CCS development globally, Norway has
geologically stored more than 20Mt of CO2 in the past 20 years.
The Sleipner and Snøhvit projects were the first in the world tostore CO2 offshore and are the only operational large scale CCS
facilities in Europe.
A planned full scale CCS project will involve capturing CO2 at multiple
industrial facilities, then transporting it for storage. Operated by
Equinor with partners Shell and Total, the facility will uniquely use
ship-based transport, thus enabling the storage of CO2 for major
sources across North West Europe. The transport and storage elementof the project – Northern Lights – will be open access infrastructure.
The initial Norwegian sources of CO2 – Fortum’s Oslo Varme waste-toenergy plant and Heidelberg Cement’s Norcem cement plant in Brevik– have performed FEED studies and site testing. A drilling campaign
will start soon to study the suitability and capacity of the Johansen
formation in the Norwegian Continental Shelf for storing CO2.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Air Liquide
ArcelorMittal
Ervia
Fortum Oyj
HeidelbergCement AG
Preem
Stockholm Exergi

The parties will cooperate on CO2 handling and transport
to Northern Lights.

Based on its experience with CCS, the Norwegian Government
hopes to use this project as the catalyst for wider deployment of
CCS in Europe. The use of sea-based transport means industry
across Western Europe can also store and transport their CO2
through Northern Lights.

NORWEGIAN FULL-SCALE PROJECT
3RD PARTY VOLUMES OF CO2
ALTERNATIVE STORAGE PROJECTSCO2 HUBNORDLANDNORCEM AS
NORTHERN LIGHTS
STORAGE SITE
EYDE
CLUSTERFORTUMOLSO VARMEBORG CO2

STOCKHOLM
EXERGIPREEM
LYSEKILPREEM
GOTHENBURG

ACORNNET ZEROTEESSIDE

ERVIA

ARCELORMITTALDUNKERQUE

H2M, EEMSHAVEN ARCELORMITTALHAMBURG
AIRLIQUIDEPORT ANTWERP& FLUXYSARCELORMITTALGENTFIGURE 19 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CO2 FOR NORTHERN LIGHTS50
46

4.0 Regional Overviews
4.3 Europe

CCS DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UK
In November 2018, the UK Government released “UK Carbon
Capture Usage and Storage Deployment Pathway: An Action Plan”.
This year, following the UK Committee on Climate Change's
recommendations, the UK legislated a net zero target by 2050.
The value of CCS was highlighted in the ‘Net Zero’ report,
where the Committee on Climate Change describes the technology
as “a necessity, not an option”.
The UK is working towards meeting the goals set out in its Action
Plan and is on track to achieve its aspiration of deploying the UK’s
first CCUS facility from the mid-2020s:• In March a CCUS Advisory Group was established, drawing on
experts from the industry, finance and legal sectors to consider
challenges facing CCUS in the UK. The Group’s work culminatedin a report – “Investment Frameworks for Development of CCUS
in the UK”.
• A government consultation in July examined business models
that could work for CCUS. The proposed models use different
mechanisms to support capture from power, industry and hydrogenproduction separately, and transport and storage combined.
• Since many of the UK’S oil and gas assets are nearing the endof their economic lives, a second consultation looked at thepotential to re-use their infrastructure. Infrastructure
repurposing can defer decommissioning costs, whilesubstantially reducing transport and storage costs.
Several planned UK CCUS projects will take this option.

At the 2018 UN Climate Change Conference (COP 24) in Poland,
the UK Government shared its world-leading ambition to develop
the first ‘net-zero carbon’ cluster by 2040. Backed by up to £170m,
the announcement is already stimulating UK clusters. Hydrogenproduction is a common feature:• Net Zero Teesside plans to develop an industrial cluster in the North
East of England. It is one of five global CCUS hubs supported by
OGCI’s CCUS KickStarter initiative. Each year the cluster plans tocapture up to 6 million tonnes of CO2 from a gas fired power plantand other industrial sources and could be fully operational by 2030.
• Zero Carbon Humber is a partnership to build a zero-carbon
industrial cluster in England’s Humber region. Pilot testing for
a BECCS project is underway at the UK’s largest power station,
Drax, and there are plans for a hydrogen and CCS network in thesurrounding area. Figure 21 shows the anticipated timeline for the
project, culminating in over 10 Mtpa of CO2 abated51.
• The Acorn project plans a major hydrogen and CCS hub at St Fergus
in Scotland. Here, 35 per cent of all UK natural gas comes onshore,
making it the ideal place to blend hydrogen directly into the grid.
The project took a major step forward in late 2018 when it wasawarded the first carbon dioxide appraisal and storage licence by
the Oil and Gas Authority, the independent regulator and licensing
authority for offshore carbon dioxide storage in the UK.
In parallel to these major projects, innovative UK companies continue
to develop novel CCUS technologies. Two examples of success are:
• C-Capture has developed a non-amine based capture technology,
now being tested at Drax.
• Carbon Clean Solutions was selected for the world’s largest
cement-based carbon capture project in India, using its
patented CDRMax technology.
With Scotland hosting COP 26, the year ahead is bound to beanother where CCUS takes purposeful strides forward in the UK.

GRANGEMOUTH
4.3 MTCO2
TEESSIDE
3.1 MTCO2

MERSEYSIDE
2.6 MTCO2

HUMBERSIDE
12.4 MTCO2

SOUTH WALES
8.2 MTCO2
SOUTHAMPTON
2.6 MTCO2

FIGURE 20 UNITED KINGDOM INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS HUBSAND CLUSTERS

47

St Fergus Terminal, United Kingdom.
Photo credit: North Sea Midstream Partners (NSMP).

PHASE ONE: ANCHOR PROJECTSPHASE TWO: SCALE-UP OF BECCS & HYDROGEN

2026

2027

2028-35

2028-40

Hydrogen (H2) demonstrator and test
facility constructed in the Humber.

Bioenergy carbon capture and storage(BECCS) technology installed on one
Drax biomass unit.

BECCS technology installed on all
Drax biomass units, generating 16
million tonnes of negative emissions
per yearHydrogen production scaled up toprovide low carbon fuel to multiple
industries across the region

FIGURE 21 ZERO CARBON HUMBER PROJECT TIMELINECCS Ambassador

ALLARD CASTELEINCEO,Port of Rotterdam

In Rotterdam, work is being carried out on a unique
CCS project. The concept of this project is based on apipeline measuring approximately 30 km that runs
through Rotterdam’s port and industrial area. This
pipeline will serve as a basic infrastructure that a variety
of industrial parties will be able to connect to in order todispose of the CO2 captured at their facilities. This CO2
will be transported to an empty natural gas field 20-25
km off the coast under the North Sea. By 2030, we expect
to store between two and five million tonnes of CO2
every year.

“BY 2030, WE
EXPECT TO STORE
BETWEEN TWOAND FIVE MILLIONTONNES OF CO2
EVERY YEAR.”

Right now the planning is geared towards definitive
agreements with a number of industries in Rotterdam
in 2020. At the same time, the Dutch Government isdeveloping a programme of subsidies to help level out
the difference in costs between the EU ETS and CCS.
The system is scheduled to be operational by the endof 2023, after which it will also be possible to connect
CO2 sources from outside Rotterdam. For instancefrom industry elsewhere in the Netherlands, Antwerp
or the German Ruhr region.
This Rotterdam-based CCS project will serve twomain objects: first, CO2 emissions will be substantiallyreduced, and second, the investment climate in
Rotterdam will be strengthened because companies will
have the option of connecting to the CCS infrastructure.
48

4.0 Regional Overviews
4.4 Middle East and Central Asia

4.4
MIDDLE EAST
AND CENTRAL ASIA
OVERVIEW

Region has vast and accessible undergroundstorage potential of 5-30 Gigatonnes*

Capturing 1.6 Mtpa of CO2

1.6

Mtpa

2 large scale CCS facilities in operation:
1 in iron and steel production and
1 in natural gas processing

5-30 Gt

HYDROGEN OPPORTUNITYCENTRAL ASIA

Low carbon hydrogen production, from natural gas with CCS,in the Middle East is estimated to cost only USD1.50/kg

Rapidly increasing energy demands being driven by growing population,rising living standards and urbanisation that is largely met by fossil fuels.

H

2

1.50

$US

/kg

POLICY AND CCS MOVEMENT
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates both membersof Mission Innovation and the Clean Energy Ministerial.

Both countries have committed to doubling public investment in clean
energy research and development and are participating in the Clean
Energy Ministerial’s CCUS initiative.

2*Medium confidence49

Decarbonising the region’s energy system is key to achieving global
climate targets. CCS has a role to play.

MIDDLE EAST
Natural gas demand is expected to continue to rise in the Middle
East, driven by the growing industrial sector, power generation
demands and the growing petrochemicals industry52. Countries
in the region are increasingly aware of the need to decarbonise
their oil and gas production and the importance of diversifying
toward new energy economies. CCS can play an important role in
the Middle East to support energy demand and the transition tocleaner energy sources. With vast and accessible underground CO2
storage potential53, abundant cost-competitive gas resources54 andhydrogen production facilities with excess capacity, the Middle East
has potential to become a hub for CCS development and deployment.
The region could also use its location and natural gas and porespace resources to develop a clean hydrogen export industry. Clean
hydrogen production, from natural gas with CCS, in the Middle Eastis estimated to cost USD1.50/kg H255.

In the next decade,
Abu Dhabi National Oil
Company aims to scale-up
CCS deployment six-fold,capturing five million
tonnes of CO2 by 2030.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) lead this region’s
efforts, each hosting one large-scale CCS facility that is supported
and operated by State Owned Enterprises. Abu Dhabi captures CO2from steel production and Uthmaniyah, Saudi Arabia from natural
gas processing – both supply CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.
Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) recently announced
that it would be scaling up efforts to reduce its emissions 10 percent,by 2023. CCS will play a role56. In the next decade, ADNOC aims toscale-up CCS deployment six-fold, capturing five million tonnes of
CO2 by 2030. Emissions will be captured from either the HabshanBab complex, or the Shah plant57.
In October 2019, Qatar, now the second’s largest exporter of LNG58,
announced that it aims to capture and store five million tonnes of
CO2 from LNG facilities by 202559. Qatar Petroleum has announced
a facility at the industrial hub Ras Laffan with the potential to captureand store 2.1 million tonnes per annum, which could become thelargest CCS facility in the Middle East and North Africa region60.
The captured CO2 will be used for EOR.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are members of Mission Innovationand the Clean Energy Ministerial. The two nations have eachcommitted to doubling public investment in clean energy researchand development and are participating in the Clean Energy
Ministerial’s CCUS initiative.

CENTRAL ASIA
In Central Asia, a growing population, rising living standards
and urbanisation are creating rapidly increasing energy demands.
These are largely met via abundant and inexpensive fossil fuelreserves. For many countries, such as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan,energy production is a central part of the economy and they rely
heavily on fossil fuel. Home to some of the most energy intensive
economies in the world, decarbonising this region’s energy system
will be key to achieving global climate targets.
For several countries in the region, CCS could play a role insupporting efforts to decarbonise energy sources. In Kazakstan for
example coal, oil and gas contribute 98 per cent of the country’s
primary energy supply61. The country is interested in CCS, given
its significant coal reserves and dependence on mining. Natural
resources company, Eurasian Resources Group (ERG) is currently
exploring how to use CCS to reduce emissions from its fossil fuelpower generation fleet. Initial investigations are focused on thefeasibility of retrofitting a coal fired power plant with a 2Mtpa
CCS facility. If successful, ERG will construct and operate apilot capture plant.

504.0 Regional Overviews
4.5 Asia Pacific

4.5
ASIA PACIFIC
EMISSIONS PROFILECCS

Asia Pacific region is the source of just over 50%of the world’s total CO2 emissions which isdriven by fossil fuel reliance.

Led by China and India, Asia Pacific economies
also produce more than half of the world’s
most emissions-intense products, such as
steel and cement.

+ 50%
+ 50%
In 2017, Asia Pacific region was responsible for72 per cent of the world’s coal consumption.

72%

Currently 352 GW of coal fired power
plants under construction or in planning.

352

Region has 12 large-scale facilities
either operating or in various
stages of development.

12

GW

INDIA

CHINA
China contributes almost
one third of the world’s
CO2 emissions.

1 large-scale facility inoperation, 2 in construction
and 5 in early development.

China leads CCS activity
across the Asia Pacific.

In 2018, India’s emissions
rose by 4.8 per cent.
2018

4.8%

IEA estimates that, by 2060, India will accountfor 20 per cent of global industrial CO2
emissions being captured and stored.
2060

20%

ALMOST

33%
AUSTRALIA2019 commencement of theworld's 19th large-scale CCS
project, a first for Australia.

WORLD'S 19TH
LARGE-SCALECCS PROJECT

3.4-4
Mtpa
51

JAPAN
When fully operational, Gorgon willbe the world’s largest dedicatedgeological storage facility.

5 pilot and demonstration
CCS facilities.

5

Policy: ambition to become theworld’s leading emission freehydrogen society and views CCS
as a necessary part of achieving this.

H

2

The Asia Pacific region is the source of just over half of the world’s total
CO2 emissions. This heavy emissions profile is driven by large, rapidly
growing and developing economies which rely on fossil fuels for power
generation. Many countries, particularly those across South East
Asia, have young fleets of fossil fuel power stations with decades of
economic life, and are planning more. There are 352 GW of coal fired
power plants under construction or in planning for the near-future.
In 2017, the Asia Pacific was responsible for 72 per cent of the world’s
coal consumption62. China made up nearly half of this; followed bySouth East Asia, Korea and Japan. Increasing coal power generationin Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines and Vietnam is driving futureforecast demand.
Switching from coal to gas for industrial and residential uses,
particularly in China, has increased demand for liquefied natural
gas63. It is predicted to account for almost 60 per cent of total global
energy consumption by 202464. Led by China and India, Asia Pacificeconomies also produce more than half of the world’s most emissionsintense products, such as steel65 and cement66.
These challenges – combined with inertia around developing lowcarbon policy mechanisms and lack of legal and regulatory regimes
to incentivise CCS investment – could create the assumption that there
is little room for CCS technologies. But, with air pollution on the rise,
CCS deployment cannot happen soon enough. Encouragingly, in thepast year, the Asia Pacific has continued to strengthen its position as
one of the most active CCS regions in the world, with 12 large-scale
facilities either operating or in various stages of development67.

CHINA
China leads CCS activity across the Asia Pacific with one large-scale
facility in operation, two in construction and five in early development.
China also contributes almost one third of the world’s CO2 emissions
and has the most urgent requirement to reduce them.
Following the 2018 restructure, the Chinese Government
focused on a more coordinated approach to general environmental
management, combining emissions reductions with air pollutant
controls, to stimulate new industries and jobs. Their new National
CCUS Professional Committee will provide government with direct
support and advice on relevant industrial standards and policymaking, striving to enhance international cooperation on CCS.

Indian company Dalmia Cement has committed to becoming
carbon negative by 2040 and sees CCU as one of the solutions
it needs to get there. In September 2019, the company announcedplans for a large scale 0.5 Mtpa carbon capture facility in Tamil
Nadu, in partnership with Carbon Clean Solutions who will provide
the plant’s technology. Dalmia is looking for multiple utilisation
streams from the carbon capture plant.

JAPAN
The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)
and Ministry of the Environment (MOE) continue to drive Japan’s
comprehensive CCS program. This program is multi-dimensional,
addressing the full CCS value chain from the development, anddemonstration of capture technologies, investigating effective
regulatory models, exploring policy options for commercial
deployment, identifying and characterizing storage reservoirs andCO2 transport options, and understanding CCS business models.
In June, the Japanese Government submitted its Long-Term Strategy
under the Paris Agreement, to the UNFCCC. The strategy identifies
CCS alongside other emission-reduction technologies, to deliver
deep emission reductions to power generation and industrial
processes including the production of clean hydrogen, and states
the Government of Japan’s intention to collaborate with the private
sector and other governments on a range of initiatives designed toreduce barriers to CCS deployment.
The Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project (HESC) is a significant
example of Japanese government collaboration with the private
sector and other governments to commercialise CCS. This project
being developed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI), ElectricPower Development Co. (J-Power), Iwatani Corporation, Marubeni
Corporation, Sumitomo Corporation and AGL, with the support of
the Governments of Japan, Australia and the State of Victoria, will
demonstrate the production of hydrogen from coal in the Latrobe
Valley of Victoria and the transport of hydrogen by ship from
Australia to Japan. Construction of the gasifier commenced
in November 2019 and first hydrogen production is expected by
2021. If this pilot is successful, an investment decision to construct
a commercial scale clean hydrogen production facility with CCS in
the Latrobe Valley, to supply Japan could be made in the mid 2020s.

In May 2019, the latest Roadmap for CCUS in China was published.
It clarified the strategic position of CCUS and proposed mid to longterm targets and priorities for achieving low carbon transition
through affordable, feasible and reliable CCUS technologies.
The Institute expects that these significant policy commitments to
cut emissions and advance low carbon technologies will advancethe deployment of CCS.

INDIA
In 2018, India’s emissions rose by 4.8 per cent, alongside a sharp
increase in energy demand and a five per cent growth in demandfor coal68. It has the world’s third largest coal fleet69, with an average
plant age of 16 years70 and growing infrastructure demands which
draw on energy intensive materials like steel and cement, of which
India is the world’s second largest global producer. Importantly, in
its clean technology scenario, the IEA estimates that, by 2060, India
will account for 20 per cent of global industrial CO2 emissions captureand storage71. CCS can underpin a meaningful energy transition forthis region, offering rapid decarbonisation for clean and sustainableeconomic development.

Osaki CoolGen facility, Japan.

52

4.0 Regional Overviews
4.5 Asia Pacific
Other 2019 updates for CCS in Japan:• With ongoing support from Japan’s Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry, CCS Co. Ltd’s Tomakomai CCS facility,
remains Asia’s first full-cycle CCS hydrogen plant. In 2019,it reached a capture milestone of 300,000 tonnes of CO2,and continued intensive monitoring of storages.
• Construction continued at Toshiba Corporation’s 49MW Mikawa
power plant in the Fukuoka Prefecture for biomass (and coal)with carbon capture. Completion is expected in early 2020.
• A new CO2 capture plant was established in August 2019,
continuing progress at the Osaki CoolGen facility in the Hiroshima
Prefecture. The JPOWER and Chugoku Electric Power Company’s
166 MW oxygen-blown integrated gasification combined cycle(IGCC) facility will separate and capture CO2 from the end of 2019.
Solid oxide fuel cells will make up stage three.
• Toshiba’s carbon capture and utilisation system at the Saga City
Waste Incineration Plant continued operating, using captured
CO2 for algae culture.

AUSTRALIA
If Australia is to contribute to global emissions reduction goals at
the lowest possible cost, CCS is essential. It can also help decarbonise
energy-intensive industries that depend on fossil fuels, enabling justtransitions for many regional communities who rely on mining for
economic and social sustainability. Australia is in a good position toembrace CCS, with a well-developed legal and regulatory framework,and moderate to high confidence that over 400Gt of geological storage
capacity is available nationally.
In 2019:• Gorgon commenced in August – the world’s nineteenth largescale CCS project and Australia’s first. When fully operational,
CO2 injection at this natural gas processing facility will lead toCO2 storage of around 3.4-4 Mtpa. It will be the world’s largest
dedicated geological storage facility.
• Momentum continued around the Hydrogen Energy Supply
Chain (HESC) pilot project in the LaTrobe Valley. Constructionof the pilot brown coal gasification plant, which will producehydrogen, commenced in late 2019.
• Victoria’s CarbonNet project continued to consider the potential
for establishing a commercial scale CCS transport and CO2
storage network. It included field investigation activities suchas geophysical and geotechnical surveys.
• Advanced research by the CO2CRC continued, with stage threeproject work beginning at the Otway National CCS Research
Facility.
The IEA’s 2018 Review of Australia’s Energy Policies stated that:“Australia is well placed to demonstrate cutting-edge technologies,
including concentrated solar power, battery storage and carbon
capture and storage.”72 The IEA urged Commonwealth andState Governments to step up support for technology R&D andcommercialisation, including through the Australian Renewable
Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation(CEFC).
To fully realise the opportunities offered by CCS, Australia will needa dedicated and expanded focus on creating supportive policy andaddressing legal and regulatory barriers to deployment, across bothState and Federal jurisdictions.

53

CCS IN NEW ZEALAND: PROJECT POUAKAI
Project Pouakai is a clean power generation and clean hydrogen,ammonia and synthetic nitrogen fertiliser production complex,
currently being established in New Zealand’s Taranaki Region.
It draws on exciting new technological developments that enableeconomical production of electricity and hydrogen, with fullcarbon capture. It could also produce enough urea to meet theneeds of the whole New Zealand agriculture sector, and more.
Owned by 8Rivers, a US based infrastructure technology firm,
the project is being developed by Pouakai NZ Limited Partnership(“Pouakai LP”), it is expected to come online by 2024. Once
operational, the Pouakai facility will produce approximately 600
tonnes of zero-emissions hydrogen per day. It is expected to use,in one cohesive natural gas-fed facility, three process technologies:• NET Power’s Allam Cycle (see page 64) electricity generation.
• 8Rivers’ 8RH2 hydrogen production technology.
• ammonia synthesis and synthetic nitrogen fertiliser production
train consuming internally-produced feedstocks, all sharing
a common air separation unit.
8Rivers has been developing Allam Cycle technology since 2008,
including raising development capital through NET Power from
Exelon, McDermott and Occidental Petroleum and NP.
A successful 50MW reference plant exists in La Porte, near
Houston, Texas. In combination with 8RH2 technology, it’s
expected to cut feedstock (hydrogen, power and nitrogen) input
costs in ammonia and synthetic nitrogen-fertiliser production.
Project Pouakai will have a process approximately 25 per centmore efficient than leading fertiliser plants globally, while
enabling high-efficiency baseload and peak power generation.

CCS Ambassadors

IIDA YUJI

SHOICHI ISHII

Director-General,
Industrial Science and Technology
Policy and Environment Bureau
Ministry of Economy, Trade andIndustry (METI), JapanThe government of Japan approved “the Long-Term Strategy
under Paris Agreement” at a cabinet meeting in June 2019. The
Strategy holds a long-term vision of reducing GHG emissions by
80 per cent by 2050, proclaiming “a decarbonized society” as its
ultimate goal, and aiming to accomplish it as early as possible
in the second half of this century. Under this long-term vision,
CCS is regarded as a technology contributing to substantial GHG
emission reductions in the future.
So far, Japan has been working on a large-scale demonstration
test at Tomakomai, Hokkaido, research and development on CO2
separation and safety management technologies, and a studyof suitable storage sites, aiming for the practical application of
the CCS technology around 2020. Especially, the demonstration
project at Tomakomai, which draws global attention, achieved theaccumulative CO2 injection amount of 280,000 ton as of the end of
September 2019, having made successful progress in coordination
with local stakeholders.
Meanwhile, in order to realize the future societal implementationof CCS in Japan, further reduction of CCS costs and availability oftransportation from distant CO2 sources to suitable storage sites
with enough potential are issues needing to be addressed. Social
acceptance of CCS needs to be ensured as well. Efforts are needed
to proceed with the full chain of economic and safe separation andcapture, transportation, and storage, under appropriate divisionof roles between the government and the private sector.
Looking at efforts in other countries, “the Long-Term Strategy
under Paris Agreement” promotes to “seek international
collaboration on research and development, demonstration,
standardization and further rulemaking.” Participating in the
CEM CCUS Initiative and the IEA CCUS Summit among others
so far, Japan has been actively promoting efforts for further
deployment of CCUS, while supporting overseas operations of
its private companies under bilateral cooperation with countries
such as the US, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. Japan continues toseek for such multilateral and bilateral cooperation.
As a technology that is capable of reducing substantial CO2
emissions, it is important not only for Japan but also for theentire world to put CCS into practical use and realize its
commercialisation. I would like to extend my respect toactivities of the Global CCS Institute, which is working topromote the worldwide deployment of CCS.

“AS A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS CAPABLE OF
REDUCING SUBSTANTIAL CO2 EMISSIONS,IT IS IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR JAPANBUT ALSO FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD TO
PUT CCS INTO PRACTICAL USE AND
REALIZE ITS COMMERCIALISATION.”

President,
Japan CCS Co. Ltd

Since 2012, Japan CCS has been steadily accumulating numerous
results and achievements in the Tomakomai CCS Demonstration
Project, under the leadership of the Japanese Government and thewarm support and cooperation of the people of Tomakomai City,
led by Mayor Iwakura.
The Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project is playing animportant role of firstly to achieve the objective of demonstrating afull-chain CCS system comprising the capture, injection and storage
from onshore into sub-seabed reservoirs of a cumulative amountof 300,000 tonnes of CO2, and further to resolve the challenges
towards the practical use of CCS technology in Japan post 2020.
Reflecting on our trajectory towards this objective, we achieved
100,000 tonnes in November 2017, 200,000 tonnes in August
2018, and en route to achieving our objective by the end of 2019.
Our achievement of safe and secure operation of the Tomakomai
Project in the vicinity of a large city, and in spite of major
earthquakes and disasters has established that CCS is a safe
and sound mitigation technology against global warming. Also,in conjunction with the demonstration of CCS technology, we
have been active in fostering the acceptance of CCS by the local
community, and have been steadily advancing our global
warming efforts together with the local community.
Our efforts in Japan in countering global warming have been
received very highly internationally, and we have widely promoted
the storage of CO2 into the offshore sub-seabed. Of particularnote is our deep collaborative relationship with the Global CCS
Institute, which has been instrumental is disseminating widely
our achievements in the international scene. The trust that has
been extended to us by the Institute has inspired us in our dayto-day activities has led us on a path towards contributing to thedevelopment of CCS in the world, for which we are truly grateful.
As has been pointed out in the IPCC SR15 report, the earth inwhich we live is experiencing serious consequences of global
warming. In recent years, Japan has suffered extensive damage
from heavy rains and giant typhoons caused by rising sea watertemperatures, and many people are starting to witness firsthandthe effects of the extreme changes in the global environment.
We consider our efforts in global warming countermeasuresthrough the promotion of CCS to be our duty, and will continue
our active engagement in international activities.
To this end, under the guidance of the Japanese Government,
and in collaboration with the local and global community,
we will endeavor towards the improvement of our technicalcapabilities and the large-scale deployment of CCS in Japan andabroad. While aiming to proceed to the next step in CCUS whichtakes into perspective the efficient use of CO2, we will continue
our international activities in order that the achievements of
the Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project are shared andeffectively utilised not only in Japan but also abroad as pioneering
accomplishments in offshore sub-seabed CO2 storage, and indoing so make a small contribution towards the mitigation of
global warming.
54

5.0
CCS DEVELOPMENT:TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS

55

1.0

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

INTRODUCTION
About Global CCS Institute
About the Report
Acronyms
CEO Foreword

2.0	MEETING THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE:
THE NEED FOR CCS
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS
Global CCS Facilities Update
Policy Levers for Accelerating Deployment
Global CO2 Storage Overview
Legal and Regulatory Overview

4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

REGIONAL OVERVIEWSInternational Climate Policy Overview
Americas
EuropeMiddle East and Central Asia
Asia Pacific5.0	CCS DEVELOPMENT:TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS
5.1
Natural Gas
5.2 Hydrogen
5.3
CCS in the Power Sector
5.4	Bioenergy with Carbon Captureand Storage (BECCS)
5.5
Direct Air Capture (DAC)
5.6 CO2 Utilisation
5.7 CCS Innovation
5.8 Industry’s Transition to a Net-zero Future
6.0

APPENDICES

7.0

REFERENCES

5.0 CCS development: Technology and Applications
5.1 Natural Gas

5.1
NATURAL GASDECARBONISING POWER, INDUSTRY AND
KICK-STARTING THE ENERGY TRANSITION
In 2018, demand for natural gas grew at its fastest pace since2010, accounting for almost half of added global energy demand73.
It is expected to grow at about 1.6 per cent per year through to2024, largely because it is seen as a fix to worsening air quality
in non-OECD countries, can replace retiring coal and nuclear in
Europe, and is undercutting coal in the US74. The IEA’s Sustainable
Development Scenario75 sees gas demand stabilising slightly below
this forecast somewhere between the mid-2020s and 2040. Whilegas power generation produces half the carbon dioxide emissionsof coal, at around 350 kg CO2/mega watt hour (MWh) for the mostefficient combined cycle gas plant, it is not considered a low emissions
technology. Natural gas production and processing also produce
significant CO2 emissions.
Eliminating almost all greenhouse gas emissions along the natural
gas value chain is necessary if we are to meet the target of net-zeroemissions by mid-century. More than 700 Mtpa76 of indirect CO2
emissions – almost equal to the emissions of Germany in 201677 –
could be eliminated from oil and gas operations through theapplication of CCS. Applying CCS at gas processing facilities costs
around USD20-25 per tonne CO278. It is not only one of the lowest
cost CCS-applications, but is already capturing 25 Mtpa79 at ten of
19 operating large-scale CCS facilities80. Even so, roughly 150 Mtpa81
of effectively pure CO2 is still being vented from facilities around theglobe. CCS can play a role in laying out a sustainable path for natural
gas to become one of the preferred fuels of the future.
The liquified natural gas trade is forecast to grow by a quarter to202482. The SDS expects it to increase another 15 per cent in the
period to 204083. Natural gas usually contains CO2 which
has to be stripped to 0.0005 per cent CO2 before liquefaction(compared to piped gas which usually has less than 0.5 per cent CO2),
to comply with local regulations and protect equipment. Natural gas
is already being decarbonised at these processing facilities:• The Gorgon CCS project was established due to a conditionof the project's approval—the gas field contains 14 per cent of
CO284, which has to be stripped before liquefaction. The facility
commenced CO2 storage in August 2019 and is expected to store
80 per cent of reservoir CO2 (or 3.4 to 4 Mtpa), reducing thefacility’s total emissions by 40 per cent. When operating at full
capture capacity, it will be the world’s largest dedicated geologicalstorage project.
• A CCS project at the Snøhvit LNG plant in Norway has been
operating since 2008, storing about 0.7 Mtpa in a depleted
natural gas field, under the sea bed.
Natural gas power generation with CCS, and other low emission
dispatchable power technologies, are an important complement
to the increasing use of intermittent renewables—ensuring system
reliability and resilience. Studies demonstrate that a grid consistingof firm low-carbon generation capacity reduces the cost of theenergy transition and enhances energy security in decarbonisation
scenarios85. The average age of the global natural gas fleet is only
19 years86 and more than 130 GW87 of unabated capacity is underconstruction globally, potentially locking in emissions for decades.
CCS retrofits will be necessary so climate goals can be reached.
There are many opportunities already for CCS technologies
to provide low cost emissions abatement in gas production
and usage. It is a growing market.

57

THE ALLAM CYCLE OPPORTUNITY
A new gas-based power generation technology is being developed
by NetPower which offers the promise of electricity generation
with carbon capture for the same cost as conventional natural
gas combined cycle generation. The technology utilises the Allam
Cycle. In a conventional natural gas combined cycle generator,
the combustion gases from methane burnt in air drive aturbine which in turn drives a generator to produce electricity.
The exhaust gases from the turbine then pass through a heatexchanger to heat water creating steam which drives a second
turbine, also connected to the generator, producing additional
power. The flue gases consist mostly of nitrogen (from air),carbon dioxide and water. Capturing the carbon dioxide fromthe flue gases of a conventional gas powered generator requires
the installation and operation of a capture plant to separate thecarbon dioxide, which makes up only about 10 per cent, fromthe other gases, mostly nitrogen. This adds cost and reduces theamount of electricity produced. In a conventional gas powered
generator, the power required to run the carbon dioxide capture
plant may reduce the overall efficiency of the generator by 10
to 15 percentage points.
The Allam cycle burns gas in an atmosphere of oxygen andcarbon dioxide producing only carbon dioxide and water in the
combustion gases, which then drive a turbine and a generator.
The hot exhaust gases pass though a heat exchanger, condensing
the water (which is removed), the remaining pure carbon dioxide
is re-compressed and an amount equal to that continuously addedfrom the combustion of methane is bled off at high pressure
ready for transport and geological storage. The remaining carbon
dioxide is re-heated in the heat exchanger and recycled into the
combustion unit and turbine.
Even though significant power is required by the air separation
unit necessary to produce the oxygen for the combustor, theefficiency advantages of the Allam cycle over conventional
combined cycle generators produce equivalent over-all efficiencies(almost 60 per cent). However, the Allam cycle enjoys a verysignificant advantage over conventional gas power systems
with respect to the capture of carbon dioxide as it requires noadditional equipment or power to separate carbon dioxide from its
flue gases, ready for geological storage. Thus there is no parasitic
load, no loss of efficiency and no reduction in electricity produced.

5.2
HYDROGEN

Demand for clean hydrogen is expected to grow strongly.
A briefing paper prepared for the Australian Commonwealthand State Governments on the development of a National
Hydrogen Strategy envisages demand exceeding 530 Mtpa
by 205090, up from 70 Mtpa today91.

THE FOCUS ON HYDROGEN

Currently, 98 per cent of global hydrogen production is fromunabated fossil fuels, around three quarters92 stemming fromnatural gas. CO2 emissions from its production are approximately
830 Mtpa93, equivalent to the annual emissions of the UK in 201894.
To meet climate targets, hydrogen must be produced via zero or very
low emission pathways. The European Commission95 and several
countries have already directly identified CCS as a key consideration
for achieving this96. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, the US andthe Netherlands have also indicated its importance in their hydrogen
policies (see Appendix 6.3 for details).

Hydrogen regained the spotlight in 2019 as a multipurpose, clean fuelfor a net-zero future, producing no greenhouse gas emissions whenused. The breadth of regions, countries and cities with strategies andsupportive policies for using and producing hydrogen, demonstrates
global recognition of the fuel’s potential to decarbonise economies88.
In 2018 alone, the EU and 18 national governments made notablehydrogen announcements and by mid-2019 there were 50 incentives
in place globally to support its use89. Hydrogen is expected to play amajor role in decarbonising industrial processes, transport, domestic
heating, and possibly electricity generation (see Figure 23 below).

INPUTS & FUELSBIOMASSNATURAL GAS

OIL

COAL

PRODUCTIONCCSREFORMER
PLANT

CO2STORAGEINDUSTRY

TRANSPORTCHEMICAL PLANTSTEEL PLANT
FERTILISER PLANT
REFINERY PLANT

HYDROGEN
FUEL CELL
ELECTRIC TRUCKUSESHYDROGEN
STORAGEGASIFICATION
PLANT

HEAT
DOMESTIC &INDUSTRIAL HEATPOWER
HYDROGENGAS TURBINEHYDROGENTRAIN

HYDROGEN
FUEL CELL
ELECTRIC CARHYDROGEN

CO2

FEEDSTOCK

HEAT

POWER

FIGURE 22 HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND USE

58

5.0 CCS development: Technology and Applications
5.2 Hydrogen
In contrast, production using electrolysis with renewables accounts
for only 0.7 per cent100 of the 70 Mtpa of dedicated hydrogen produced
today101. If hydrogen demand reaches 530Mtpa by 2050, producing
this via electrolysis would require about 25,000 terrawatt hours(TWh)vii of electricity from renewable or nuclear generation. Thisis approximately 2.8 times the total electricity generated from all
renewable sources and nuclear combined in 2017102, viii. Creating
enough renewable energy for both hydrogen production and low
emissions electricity is extremely challenging.

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION WITH CCS
The three main technologies used to produce low-carbonhydrogen are:• gas reforming (mostly from steam methane reforming) with CCS;
• coal gasification with CCS; and• electrolysis powered by renewables.
Each technology offers its own benefits and will play a role in the
global energy transition97. The advantages of low-carbon hydrogenproduction through gas reforming and coal gasification with CCS,
centre around the maturity of the technologies, scale and commercial
viability.

COMMERCIAL VIABILITY
Price will be a key decider of whether hydrogen plays a significant
role in emissions reduction. Low-carbon hydrogen produced using
gas reforming and gasification technologies with CCS is proven,
operating at commercial scale and available for deployment
right now. Hydrogen produced using coal or methane with CCS costs
USD1.70-2.40 per kilogram103 compared to USD7.45 for hydrogenproduced via electrolysisix. CCS hydrogen costs two thirds less.

MATURITY
Low-carbon hydrogen has been produced through gas reforming andcoal gasification with CCS, for almost two decades. For example, theGreat Plains Synfuel Plant in North Dakota, US, commenced operationin 2000 and produces approximately 1,300 tonnes of hydrogen(in the form of hydrogen rich syngas) per day, from brown coal98.
Hydrogen produced from coal or gas with CCS is the lowest cost cleanhydrogen by a significant margin and requires less than one tenth ofthe electricity needed by electrolysis. Where renewable electricity isrelatively scarce using renewable electricity to displace unabated fossil
generation capacity in the grid may deliver more emissions reduction
than using it to produce hydrogen in electrolysers.

Action is required now to ensure hydrogen can play its role in the global
energy transition, at the scale required to meet emissions reductions
targets. Scaling up low-carbon hydrogen production with CCS will
require capital grants or incentivising policies from governments104, viii,
a value on carbon and market mechanisms to create demand.

There are five low-carbon hydrogen production facilities with
CCS operating globally and three under construction, with a total
production capacity of 1.5 million tonnes99. Another three are inadvanced development (see Figure 24 below).

SCALE
For hydrogen to make a meaningful contribution to global greenhousegas emission reductions, it will need to be produced in very large
quantities to displace a significant proportion of current fossil fueldemand. Scaling up for low-carbon hydrogen production with CCS
is currently far less challenging than scaling up the use of electrolysis.
Commercial scale hydrogen production facilities with CCS thateach produce around 1000 tonnes of hydrogen per day are alreadyoperating. Coal, methane and pore space for CO2 storage are plentiful.
When produced on a large scale, low-carbon hydrogen made with CCS
is currently the lowest cost source available.

IN OPERATION
INDUSTRIESINVOLVING
HYDROGENPRODUCTION

2016
ENID
FERTILISER

2018

2019

2020 2021

2022 2023 2024 2025+

SINOPEC QILU

AIR PRODUCTS

PORTHOSACTL STURGEONGREAT PLAINS
COFFFEYVILLE= 1 Mtpa CO2 CIRCLE AREAPROPORTIONATE TO CAPACITY

FIGURE 23 INDUSTRIES INVOLVING HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION WITH CCS – GLOBAL FACILITY PIPELINE*Indicates the primary industry type of the facility among various
options. Size of the circle is proportional to the capture capacityof the facility.

59

2017

CARBONNET*QUEST
ACTL AGRIUM

IN OPERATIONWABASHIN CONSTRUCTIONADVANCED DEVELOPMENTSTEAM METHANE REFORMING (SMR)
Most of the hydrogen produced today is done using a chemical
process known as steam methane reforming (SMR). SMR
involves mixing methane with steam and heating the mixture
in the presence of a catalyst in a chemical reactor called a methane
reformer. A chemical reaction produces hydrogen (H2) and carbon
monoxide (CO):CH4 + H2O -> 3H2 + CO

A hydrogen purifier separates high purity hydrogen from the stream
leaving the shift reactor. The remaining gases (unreacted methane,
CO and CO2) are used as fuel for heating in the reformer to provide
additional heat and to destroy the carbon monoxide.
The SMR process produces high purity hydrogen. It generates
CO2 from the chemical reactions and from combusting fuelto heat the reformer.

The reformer output stream, known as synthesis gas or syngas,
is fed to a second reactor called a water-gas shift reactor to generate
more hydrogen and convert some of the CO to carbon dioxide (CO2):
CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2

WATER-GASSHIFT REACTORMETHANEREFORMERHYDROGENPURIFICATIONCO2METHANE & STEAMRAW SYNGASSHIFT REACTOR SYNGASFUELHYDROGENCARBON MONOXIDEMETHANE
STEAM
CO2MORE HYDROGEN
MORE CO2LESS CARBONMONOXIDE
LESS STEAMPURIFIED H2
TAIL GASCARBONMONOXIDE
CO2
METHANE

FIGURE 24 STEAM METHANE REFORMATIONHYDROGEN AND CCS: FACILITATING A JUSTTRANSITION FOR AUSTRALIA’S LATROBE VALLEY
In regions that largely rely on jobs producing or using fossil fuels,
decisions to close energy intensive facilities often result in damaging
economic and social disruption. Establishing a clean hydrogenproduction industry in these places, can protect and create skilled
and high value jobs, delivering a just transition for people and theircommunities.
Existing brown coal fired electricity generating facilities in the
Latrobe Valley of Victoria, Australia will close as they reach theireconomic life in the coming decades. They will not be replaced.
The damage to the local economy of the Latrobe Valley when thesegenerators close, and their supply chains are no longer required,
will be severe.
However, the Latrobe Valley hosts coal and natural gas feedstock forhydrogen production using CCS, and is adjacent to a world-class CO2
storage basin with several prospective storage sites. These existing

resources could be the anchor investment needed to establish alow emission industry hub. CO2 transport and storage infrastructure,
constructed to support the hub, could also be used by nearby highemission industry sources, such as the Longford gas plant.
The requirements for reskilling the local workforce would be low.
A successful clean hydrogen industry utilises all the skills currently
employed in the extractive and chemical industries. A new cleanhydrogen industry would also have a small footprint, confined
mostly to the footprint of existing industrial facilities and mines.
Creating a low-carbon hydrogen industry based upon coal orgas with CCS in areas like the LaTrobe Valley that have all thenecessary pre-requisites would deliver material emission reductions
and create economic opportunities for the local community thatmight otherwise suffer economic decline.

605.0 CCS development: Technology and Applications
5.3 CCS in Power Sector

5.3
CCS IN POWER SECTOR
Most planned and active CCS projects are in industrial sectors wherehigh concentration CO2 is readily available and can be captured atrelatively low cost. However, to enable sustainable economic growthand elevate living standards while achieving Paris Agreement targets,
deep emissions reductions are needed across all sectors, especially thepower sector. There are only two large-scale CCS facilities currently
operating therex.
Rapid deployment of renewable energy has reduced the amount of
dispatchable power required from fossil fuel sources, but the natureof wind and solar generation, mean renewables may create challenges
for energy systems mostly not designed for intermittent generation105.
High levels of intermittent energy may even substantially increase
overall system costs106. Coal and gas fuelled power stations equippedwith CCS delivers dispatchable low emissions electricity demandedby advanced economies, and requires no additional measures toensure grid resilience and reliability of supply. As the penetrationof intermittent renewable generation in a grid increases, additional
investment in transmission augmentation, energy storage, demandside management and artificial inertia is also required. The lowest cost
low emissions electricity grid will require dispatchable low emissions
generators alongside intermittent renewable generation capacity.
According to the IEA, existing and under construction energy
facilities account for around 95 per cent of the emissions ‘budget’
under its SDS107. Coal-fired power stations make up around one
third of total energy-related emissions globally. To enable continued
operation in a low-carbon world, asset owners need to conducteconomic and technology feasibility assessments on retrofitting
options. In developing countries, especially in Asia where coal fired
power plants have an average age of eleven years108 and decades of
economic life, retrofitting CCS will be required to reduce emissions.
Under the IEA’s SDS, it is expected that 350 MtCO2 will be captured
and stored from the power sector in 2030109. Since large-scale CCS
projects in power have long lead times – in the range of 6-10 years –the power sector must take substantive steps now, to meet thosetargets in 10-20 years.

5.4
BIOENERGY WITH
CARBON CAPTURE
AND STORAGE (BECCS)
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is a promisingclass of technologies. The production of sustainable biomass is
considered to be renewable energy, so integrating its combustion
or fermentation with CCS technology, achieves negative emissions.
Bioenergy is used to fuel vehicles (as bioethanol) and to provide
electricity through biomass combustion, displacing fossil fuels asa source of thermal energy. It is considered one of the few scalable
carbon dioxide removal options. BECCS is a feature of IPCC
scenarios consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees110.
Despite its potential, there are some serious hurdles ahead of wide
scale BECCS deployment:• Productivity and resource requirements for different typesof land and biomass vary significantly. Growing forest based
residues uses 1-1.7 hectares for every tonne of CO2 removed
annually while purpose-grown energy crops need approximately
0.1-0.4 hectares111.
• Producing crops specifically for BECCS can involve land clearing,which may reduce or even reverse its carbon removal potential112.
• Wide scale deployment of BECCS could compete or overlap withland available for forest creation or food production, leading tosignificant changes in ecosystems113.
• Producing biomass at the scale required demands large amountsof water and fertiliser.
Apart from the IEA, several prominent organisations (Royal Society,
Stanford University, Imperial College London and others) remaincommitted to BECCS, viewing it as an essential technology in thefight against climate change. Many private sector companies also see
BECCS as a way to decarbonise and shelter themselves from carbon
prices, or as a means to meet regulation requirements. In July 2013,
UK based Drax power station converted the first of its six boilers tofire using biomass. Their decision was made in response to the UK
Government’s 2025 deadline for phasing out coal in the power sector.
Drax initiated a CCS pilot project in 2018 which now captures 1 tonneof CO2 per day. If successful, the pilot will pave the way towards
negative emissions in the UK.
The other main application of BECCS uses fermentation to produce
bioethanol. Bioethanol production produces a relatively pure streamof CO2 gas which presents an opportunity for low cost capture andmakes BECCS facilities a relatively low cost development. This could
be especially relevant in developing countries, which are responsible
for approximately 35 per cent of global ethanol production114.
The Institute regards the deployment of BECCS as a proven andimportant complement to CCS, so long as it uses sustainably sourced
biomass. It cannot, however, be relied upon as the only form of CCS.
It is one option in a suite of solutions.

Boundary Dam, Canada.
Photo Courtesy of SaskPower.
61

CCS Ambassadors

PROFESSOR WEI NING
Researcher,
Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences

EOR and gas (EGR) recovery, underground water (EWR),
and coal-bed methane (ECBM) recovery have the highest
potential. Also, CO2-EOR and CO2-EWR have sufficienttechnical readiness levels (TRL) and relatively low cost
to deploy large, industrial-scale facilities today.
The total theoretical CO2 storage resources in China
can reach 2,500 gigatonnes (50 per cent probability)with very high variations, including resource
availability, spatial distribution of suitable sites,
TRL, and corresponding cost ranges of various CO2
geological storage and utilisation options.

OPPORTUNITIES IN CHINA
China’s total annual CO2 emissions are currently
approximately 10 billion tonnes. Four major sectors:
coal power, modern coal conversion, cement and theiron and steel industry account for more than twothirds of total emissions. Technologies to capture
and geologically store CO2, using China’s vast storage
resources, is predicted to significantly improve therange and affordability of options available to mitigate
rising emissions from those four industries.
In addition, CO2 geological storage and utilisation
technologies can be applied to enhance the recovery
of hydrocarbons, underground water, geothermal,
and other resources to offset the high cost of CO2
storage. Among these options, the capacity of CO2

The theoretical CO2 storage resources available inorder of decreasing resource potential are: deep saline
aquifers for EWR (2,471 GtCO2); coal-bed methane for
ECBM (114 GtCO2); oil fields for EOR (4.76 GtCO2); andnatural gas fields for EGR (4.02 GtCO2). The levelised
cost of abatement in the order of increasing cost are
EOR, EGR, and EWR, being the highest cost amongst
the three technologies.
Systematic source-sink matching results show thatthe effective annual mitigation potential of CGUS anddedicated geological storage could reach 3.5 gigatonne
per annum in China. The combined levelised cost ofabatement is less than 60 USD/t CO2 in those four majorindustry sectors above under current techno-economic
conditions. Highly prospective regions include theNorth, Northeast, and Northwest of China.

“THE TOTAL THEORETICAL
CO2 STORAGE RESOURCES
IN CHINA CAN REACH
2,500 GIGATONNES”

HELEEN DE CONINCKAssociate Professor,
Department of Environmental Science,
Radboud University
Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 4 of the
IPCC Special Report on Global warming of 1.5°C

If we want to limit warming to 1.5°C, we need to halve
global CO2 emissions in ten years compared to now,and CO2 emissions need to be net zero in 2050. Every
tonne and every year counts. Technological and costdevelopments in CCS are outpaced by those in renewableelectricity. CCS is therefore only useful when fast
implementation and environmental performance canbe assured. This means in industry. CCS has a role there
if it enables an industrial system transition and takes us
out of the current carbon lock-in. If that can be done,
we should get on with it.”62

5.0 CCS development: Technology and Applications
5.5 Direct Air Capture (DAC)

5.5
DIRECT AIR
CAPTURE (DAC)
Direct Air Capture (DAC) is a modular technology that cancapture CO2 directly from the atmosphere using chemicals thatbind or stick to it. CO2 can then be stored or repurposed into CO2
re-use applications, such as manufacture of construction aggregates,
plastics and synthetic fuels.
There are two promising groups of DAC technologies:• Large infrastructural DAC using water solutions containinghydroxides to extract CO2 from the air. It requires hightemperatures (greater than 800°C ) for regeneration,
which tends to be provided by burning natural gas.
• A modular technology based on amine materials bonded
to a porous solid support. The process operates at 85°-120°C
requiring far less heat energy. There is potential for future
cost reductions through mass production.
Compared to other other forms of negative emissions (carbon dioxide
removal i.e. trees), DAC facilities require little land. There are however,concerns about its requirement for large amounts of water and energy
to extract low concentration CO2 from the atmosphere. Recent models
estimate that if DAC was the only CO2 removal method used to avoid
a rise of 1.5°C in global average temperature by 2050, its energy
requirements would represent approximately half of current global
energy consumption115.
• Climeworks, a Swiss company utilising modular DAC technology,
estimates its capture costs to be between USD500-700 per tonne
CO2 stored. It relies on support from individuals and companies,
willing to purchase emissions reduction certificates for a higher
price than they could get on a market like the EU ETS. Climeworks
aims to bring the cost of storage down to approximately USD100
per tonne CO2116, so that it can access a larger market and upscale
the technology.
• Development of the world’s largest DAC plant was recently
announced by Oxy Low Carbon Ventures and Carbon Engineering
Ltd in the US. They are working on the engineering and designof a facility that will capture an estimated 1 Mtpa of CO2 fromthe atmosphere every year. The gas will be used for EOR and bepermanently sequestered in the Permian Basin. Projected revenues
from the EOR have made this large-scale DAC project commercially
viable. In addition, the project is designed to be eligible for 45Q tax
credits and the LCFS CCS Protocol (see Section 4.3).
• Global Thermostat in the US has built two pilot facilities, each withthe capacity to remove 3,000-4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year117.
They will use captured CO2 to produce synthetic fuels.
The cost of DAC may reduce its appeal for wide scale deployment.
Progress is being made though, and it is on its way to playing a rolein combatting climate change.

63

5.6
CO2 UTILISATIONIn the next several decades, the geological storage of CO2 will do thevast amount of work to meet climate goals. However, carbon utilisation
has an important role to play. To illustrate, Mac Dowell et al estimatethat up to 700 million tonnes per annum of CO2 could be utilized by
2050118. Estimates by the IPCC of the amount of CO2 that must be
stored using CCS by the middle of this century to limit global warming
to 1.5 degrees are around 5000 to 10,000 million tonnes per year119.
Carbon utilisation will expand investment in the testing and refiningof capture technologies and can be used to permanently sequester
CO2 at locations where transportation pipelines are impractical or not
economically feasible.
CCUS is the process of capturing CO2 to be recycled for further
use. Carbon utilisation’s effectiveness as a positive weapon in thefight against climate change depends on how it is used. It can be‘substituted’ for natural CO2 in EOR, or be used as an input tothe production of something of value. Interest and investment inconverting CO2 to a different form or substance is recently booming.
In general terms, CO2 utilisation delivers emissions abatement where:• The CO2 utilised would have otherwise been emitted to theatmosphere and it remains permanently stored (EOR) or boundin the product (eg concrete).
• The CO2 utilised would have otherwise been emitted to theatmosphere and the product displaces a product of fossil fuelorigin (eg production of synthetic liquid fuels displacing diesel).
• The CO2 utilised would have otherwise been emitted toatmosphere, and it displaces CO2 produced from a natural
source solely for that purpose (eg greenhouse horticulture).

CO2 ‘SUBSTITUTE’
Dutch waste recycling and waste-to-energy firm AVR is beginning
construction of a large-scale CO2 capture system in its Duiven plant.
The pure CO2 stream, once an industry by-product, will be transported
by Air Liquide to greenhouse horticulture areas in the Netherlands.
A similar project is occurring in Saga, Japan. Both projects will see
enhanced plant growth through the addition of extra CO2, while
avoiding the use of natural CO2 or natural gas for cultivation.

REPURPOSED CO2
Other companies have developed technologies to permanently
store CO2 in building materials and chemical products:• CarbonCure, Blue Planet, and Solidia Technologies have various
sized concrete and aggregates projects underway worldwide,
many in North America.
• BluePlanet bubbles waste gases from California’s largest
power plant at Moss Landing through seawater, collecting CO2.
Around 90 per cent is removed and then combined with minerals
in the water to create limestone.
• Lanzatech creates chemical products and fuels using emissions
from industrial facilities, and has several projects around the globe.
• Cemvita Factory uses CO2 as the feedstock for sustainableproduction of intermediate chemicals and polymers.

MINERALISATIONCONCRETE CURINGBAUXITE TREATMENTCONVERSIONBIOLOGICALALGAE CULTIVATIONCHEMICALLIQUID FUELSUTILISATION (CCU)

POLYMERSFERTILISER
GREENHOUSECAPTURENON-CONVERSIONCARBONATESFOOD PROCESSING& PACKAGING

RENEWABLE METHANOL
CO2 IN CONVENTIONALMETHANOL SYNTHESISCO2 STORAGE (CCS)

DEDICATED GEOLOGICAL STORAGE

CO2 METHANATIONENHANCED OIL RECOVERYACETIC ACIDENHANCED GEOTHERMALCARBON FIBREBAKING SODA
BIOETHANOLFIGURE 25 UTILISATION AND STORAGE PATHWAYSPart of the appeal of carbon utilisation is that it allows businesses
to think about single-use carbon as a thing of the past, and is a way
to engage in the circular economy.

There are some significant but (relatively) easily faced challenges
to overcome before scaling up CO2 utilisation technologies:

Commitment to a circular economy can be a key strategy forcompanies wanting to reduce their environmental footprint.
It’s attractive to many large consumer brands who intrinsicallyunderstand that their future marketing strategy needs to cover how
they are addressing climate change. Consumer brands are beginningto look at carbon as a viable feedstock for the chemicals, polymers,
and other materials that go into their products and supply chain
executives are engaging with utilisation companies. Given theirmarketing prowess, these companies have the potential to drive a
consumer pivot to low carbon goods, supporting the whole CCU space.

RESEARCH• policy and regulatory environments need to be more supportive;• lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions must be appropriately
accounted for, including energy inputs, to determine net
carbon reductions; and• costs need to keep coming down.
However, it must be stressed that whilst the emissions abatement thatcan be delivered through CO2 utilisation is valuable, their contribution
to the emissions abatement challenge is limited.

DEVELOPMENT

CARBON FIBREPOLYMERSACETIC ACID

DEMONSTRATION

CO2 METHANATIONFERTILISER

ALGAE CULTIVATION
CO2 IN CONVENTIONALMETHANOL SYNTHESISPOWER CYCLEENHANCED OILRECOVERYCARBONATESRENEWABLE METHANOLCONCRETE CURING
BAKING SODA
FOOD PROCESSING & PACKAGING
GREENHOUSEBIOETHANOLAPPROXIMATE MARKET SIZESFIGURE 26 CURRENT TECHNOLOGY READINESS AND MARKETSIZE OF UTILISATION TECHNOLOGIES BY VOLUME

64

5.0 CCS development: Technology and Applications
5.7 CCS Innovation

Carbon dioxide capture has been an essential part of industrial
processes for 90 years, either through chemical absorption(amines, since 1930120), physical absorption, adsorption or amembrane or cryogenic distillation-based separation process. In
natural gas processing and urea fertiliser production, CO2 separation
is an inherent part of the production process, so the cost for capture
is very low121. In other industries like hydrogen, iron and steel andcement production, and in waste-to-energy, CO2 capture has been
proven at commercial scale but not yet widely deployed.
In the power sector, CO2 capture has only recently been applied at
two commercial facilities – both coal fired generators – Boundary Dam
since 2015 and Petra Nova since 2017122. The extra costs of capture
and the absence of policies to justify investment are primary barriers
to large-scale deployment of CCS in power generation. However, good
progress has been made to reduce the cost of carbon capture and to
optimise performance through project learning. Next-generation
capture technologies have also emerged to drive costs down.

PROJECT LEARNING
Providers of goods and services compete to reduce costs and to
improve the utility of their products in pursuit of market share.
As a market grows, economies of scale and scope and learning-bydoing deliver cost reductions. Innovation happens and can only beprotected from competitors for a finite time until knowledge leakage
inevitably spreads developments throughout an entire industry.
Demand increases until market saturation occurs. The net result isthe familiar pattern of technology costs reducing over time, in realterms. This is exactly the pattern observed in relation to renewableenergy technologies this century, driven by very strong and sustained
policy support.
The process of cost reduction is only just beginning in the global
CCS industry. Boundary Dam123 and Petra Nova demonstrate how
cost innovation is happening, even in the absence of a strong
competitive market. Altering design, construction and operations
can reduce costs for future carbon capture facilities:• SaskPower reported in 2015 that, based on project learningfrom Boundary Dam, they could cut costs by up to 30 per
cent on new CCS power projects. Their CCS feasibility study
for SaskPower Shand power plant, was based on a 67 per centreduction in capital costs and a levelized capture cost of USD45
per tonne CO2 (prefeasibility level +40/-25%) 124.
Shand is significantly cheaper than their first-of-a-kind facility.
• In 2018 NRG Energy showed that, based on their learnings, theirnext CO2 capture retrofit will be at least 20 per cent cheaper,
reaching a levelised capture cost of USD47 per tonne CO2125.
Valuable project learning is leading to real improvements for largescale capture plants126, xi. Figure 28 (right) shows that the cost ofcarbon capture in the power industry reduces through its evolution
from the Boundary Dam CCS facility, to Petra Nova Carbon Capture
facility, and the proposed Shand CCS facility. First-of-a-kind plants
are expected to have substantially higher financial risks and costs fordesign and construction, but provide experience and knowledge forcost reductions in subsequent CCS plants.

WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED?
• Modularising previously large-scale capture plants has reduced
the price of design and construction – improving reliability andquality control through shop fabrication, lower front-end costs,
and increased flexibility to add more capture units when required.
• Operating expenses have been reduced through the developmentof advanced solvents with lower regeneration energy and highdegradation resistance–• the energy required for amine regeneration applied to coal
combustion flue gas has significantly improved from values
around 5.5 GJ/t CO2 to 3.0 GJ/t CO2 for advanced amines,
and to below 2.5 GJ/t CO2 in the latest enhanced solvent
technology; and• high degradation resistance means reduced demand
for the makeup of the capture solvent.
• Process optimisation using inter-cooling, lean vapour
recompression, split flow arrangement and stripper
inter-heating can further drive costs down.
• Heat integration and the amount of steam/cooling water needed,also affect operating costs. Finding the right steam supply method,maximising steam extraction efficiency at nominal and partial loads
and recovering waste heat for use in the plant steam cycle are now
seen as very important in new generation carbon capture plants.

LEVELISED COST OF CAPTURE(USD$2018 PER TONNE CO²)

5.7
CCS INNOVATION

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
BOUNDARYDAM
CAPTIAL COST
FUEL COST

PETRA
NOVA

SHAND

FIXED O&M
VARIABLE O&M

FIGURE 27 BREAK DOWN OF LEVELISED COST OF CAPTURE(LCOC) FOR BOUNDARY DAM, PETRA NOVA AND SHAND127, xiii
First-of-a-kind plant would be expected to have substantially higher financial
risks and extra cost for design and construction, but it provides experienceand knowledge for the cost reductions in the subsquent CCS plants.
GCCSI Analysis based on 8% discount rate, 30 years project life, 2.5 years
construction time, capacity factor of 85%. Cost data are normalised to 2017
values. Expected accuracy range: Boundary Dam and Petra Nova: -10%
to +15%, Shand: -25% to +40%.

65

5.8
INDUSTRY’S TRANSITION
TO A NET-ZERO FUTURE
Industry is the basis of our modern society and is an essential sourceof economic growth, bringing financial benefits and job opportunities
to communities around the world. While creating this wealth, industry
uses about one-third of global energy and produces nearly a thirdof global greenhouse gases. To limit global warming to 1.5°C, the
IPCC estimates that these direct and indirect emissions must fall by
75-90 per cent by 2050, relative to 2010 levels128. Under net-zeroemission targets, industry must become carbon neutral. It will requirea portfolio of mitigation options including: improved energy efficiency,
electrification via renewable energy, innovation in production
processes, materials and feedstocks, and CCS.
CCS is essential to industrial decarbonisation. It can provide clean
growth opportunities and help ensure a just and sustainable transition
for industrial regions and communities. There is a strong case forarguing that without CCS, the necessary deep decarbonisationof industry is simply not possible. CCS essential to industrial
decarbonisation. It can provide clean growth opportunities andhelp ensure a just and sustainable transition for industrial regions
and communities. Today, the vast majority of CCS projects are inindustrial application.
The Energy Transitions Commission states that achieving net-zeroemissions in hard-to-abate sectors without CCS “will probably be
impossible, and certainly more expensive.” It describes CCS as
the most cost-effective route to decarbonising chemicals, steel andhydrogen production129. The IEA estimates that CCS can contribute28 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions reductions in industry from 2017
to 2060130. The IEA’s Clean Technology Scenario, places CCS as thesecond most important lever for deep emissions cuts, accounting for
38 per cent in the chemical sector, 17 per cent in cement and 15 percent in iron and steel131. CCS is currently a key option available fordeeply decarbonizing cement, steel and iron production.

STEEL AND IRON
Steel and iron production is reliant on coal, as both a feedstock
and a fuel, and the industry produces almost as much CO2 every
year as cement production134. Unlike cement though, emissions arise
at different points in the production process. CO2 must be captured
during heating and from the blast furnace when iron is being reduced
to make steel. Recent innovations include:• An alternative to hot metal production and conventional blast
furnaces—the smelting Reduction HIsarna Process has thepotential to capture 80 per cent of CO2 emissions fromsteelmaking when deployed together with CCS135; and• The launch of the “3D” project (for DMX™ Demonstration)
in Dunkirk — a consortium of European stakeholders is piloting
the capture of CO2 emissions at ArcelorMittal’s facility.

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY: ETHYLENE AND AMMONIA
The chemical industry, which produces products like plastic, is theindustrial sector’s third-largest emitter136. CCS has not been appliedat commercial-scale in this sector. Some possibilities are:• Ethylene, used mostly as a base for plastics, is made from varioushydrocarbons that are ‘cracked’ in pyrolysis furnaces. Knownas steam cracking, most CO2 is generated when fuel heats thefurnaces. Capturing CO2 from furnace exhaust gases is already a
proven CCS application in the power and iron and steel industries.
• Ammonia, used as a base ingredient for fertilisers and explosives,is a critical input for the agriculture and mining sectors. It is derived
from either coal or natural gas, and its production emits a mixtureof hydrogen and nitrogen, as well as a large, near-pure, stream ofCO2. Two large-scale CCS facilities already compress, transport
and use (for EOR) pure stream CO2.

CEMENTThe cement industry contributes 8 per cent of global CO2 emissions132.
Heating the kiln for calcination of limestone and then the calcination
reaction itself, produces almost all the emissions from clinker
production. Around 90 per cent of the CO2 can be captured
and stored using CCS, as long as engineering design is optimised.
This is already happening:• The LEILAC project recently demonstrated that direct separation(removing CO2 from limestone as it is being heated) could capture
more than 95 per cent of CO2 process emissions133.
• Calix is piloting this new, efficient and cost-competitive direct
separation technology.
• Norway’s Norcem project, which is part of a larger Northern Lights
project, aims to use post-combustion technologies to capture CO2from a cement plant.

26.1%

26.2%

2.1%

14.4%

28%

3.2%
IRON AND STEEL (2.07 GTCO2)
CEMENT (2.22 GTCO2)
ALUMINIUM (0.25 GTCO2)
CHEMICALS AND PETROCHEMICALS (1.14 GTCO2)
PULP AND PAPER (0.17 GTCO2)
OTHER INDUSTRY (2.07 GTCO2)

FIGURE 28 INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS BY SECTOR BY IN 2017137

66

5.0 CCS development: Technology and Applications
5.8 Industry’s Transition to a Net-zero Future

CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
Next-generation capture technologies have unique features – either
through material innovation, process innovation and/or equipment
innovation – which reduce capital and operating costs and improve
capture performance. (See Figure 29 below).
Some of these technologies are already being considered
in engineering studies for CCS facilities. They are:• Ion Engineering’s non-aqueous ICE-21 solvent – selected fora Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) study, retrofitting to
Nebraska Public Power District’s Gerald Gentleman Station.
• Membrane Technology and Research’s PolarisTM membrane
system – selected for a FEED study at Basin Electric’s Dry Fork
Station.

VENDORTECHNOLOGYCURRENT
SCALE

2014

• Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ new KS-21TM solvent – selected fora FEED study retrofitting to Prairie State Generating Company’s
Energy Campus.
• Linde-BASF’s lean-rich solvent absorption/regeneration cycle
technology – selected for a FEED study at Southern Company’s
natural gas-fired power plant.
• The University of Texas’s piperazine advanced stripper (PZAS)
process – selected for a FEED study at the Mustang Station ofGolden Spread Electric Cooperative138.
Next generation technologies are helping to drive down CCS
development costs and shorten deployment timelines. Assisted byindustry improvements that result from learning-by-doing at facility
operation and project management level, these developments are
edging CCS closer to widespread deployment.

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

SOLVENTS
LINDE/BASF

ADVANCED AMINE/ 15 MWe
HEAT INTEGRATIONION ENGINEERINGNON-AQUEOUS
SOLVENT/ AMINEMIXTURE

12 MWeIFPEN / AXENSSOLID-LIQUID
PHASE CHANGESOLVENTS

0.7 MWe

UNIVERSITY
OF KENTUCKY

HEAT-INTEGRATEDADVANCED AMINE

0.7 MWe

THE UNIVERSITYOF TEXAS AT
AUSTINPIPERAZINE AND
FLASH STRIPPER
PROCESS

0.5 MWe

SORBENTSINVENTYS

INTENSIFIEDRAPID-CYCLE
TSA

2 MWe

TDA

ALKALIZEDALUMINA
SORBENT

0.5 MWeMEMBRANESFUELCELL ENERGYMCFC WITH
3 MWe
ELECTROCHEMICALMEMBRANE

MTR

POLARIS™
MEMBRANE

1 MWe

SOLID LOOPINGCARBONENGINEERINGCHEMICALLOOPING

0.5 MWe

INHERENT CAPTURE
NET POWER / 8
RIVERS CAPITALALLAM CYCLETECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT STAGE

25 MWeBENCHSMALL PILOTFIGURE 29 SELECTED NEXT-GENERATION CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES BEINGTESTED AT 0.5 MWe (10 T/D) SCALE OR LARGER WITH ACTUAL FLUE GAS139

67

LARGE PILOT

DEMONSTRATION

2024

2025

CO2 CAPTURE RATES CANAPPROACH 100 PER CENT
Carbon dioxide capture rates from low concentration gas streams
such a power station flue gas, have historically targeted 90 per cent.
This capture rate has almost become the default target however,as described below, there is no technical reason why capture rates
in the high nineties can not be delivered. Notwithstanding what is
technically feasible, both of the first retrofits of CCS to coal fired
power stations adopted the 90 per cent capture target.
The Boundary Dam CCS retrofit has not achieved an overall capture
rate of 90 per cent since it commenced operating due to down timerequired for maintenance and process improvements. As a first ofa kind plant, it is not surprising that operational difficulties wereencountered. However these lessons only need to be learned once
and the operators of Boundary Dam, SaskPower, make all of theiroperational data available to share those learnings.

A 2019 techno-economics analysis by CSIRO140 and IEAGHG141
looked at the cost of achieving 99 per cent CO2 capture in fossil
fuel-fired power plants, compared to achieving 90 per cent.
Excluding transport and storage, cost went up by three percent in an ultra-supercritical coal plant and by eight per centin a natural gas combined cycle.
Figure 30 (below) shows that emissions with CCS can be reduced to:• 48 grams CO2eq / kWh (9 grams CO2eq/kWh direct emissions)in a coal fired plant; and• 89 grams CO2eq / kWh (4 grams CO2eq/kWh direct emissions)in a gas fired plant.
There is no technological barrier to capturing 99 per cent of direct
CO2 emissions in coal or natural gas-fired power plants.

EMISSION INTENSITY (GRAM CO2eq per kWH)

The Petra Nova facility, which is the second retrofit of CCS to a coal
fired power station, has avoided similar difficulties. Petra Nova
captures 90 per cent of the CO2 (approximately 1.4 million tonnes
per year) from a slip stream of flue gas equivalent to that produced
by a 240MW power station. The capacity of the capture plant wasdetermined by the demand for CO2. If there was sufficient demand,
there is no reason why Petra Nova could not have treated all of theflue gas produced by the power station, at a capture rate of 90 per
cent or more.

150

125

100

75

50

25

0
COAL FIRED
WITH 90%
CAPTURE
DIRECT EMISSIONGAS FIREDCOMBINEDCYCLE WITH
90% CAPTURE

COAL FIRED
WITH 99%
CAPTUREGAS FIREDCOMBINEDCYCLE WITH
99% CAPTURE

SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAICUTILITY

WIND

INDIRECT EMISSIONFIGURE 30 COMPARISON OF EMISSION INTENSITY IN
FOSSIL-FUEL-FIRED POWER PLANT WITH 90 PER CENTAND 99 PER CENT CO2 CAPTURE142

Note: Direct emission in a power plant refers to greenhouse gas emission from theon-site power production; indirect Emission in a power plant includes a variety ofemissions from the supply chain, e.g. extraction and transport of fossil fuels, and/or infrastructure used.

68

6.0
APPENDICES

69

1.0

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

INTRODUCTION
About Global CCS Institute
About the Report
Acronyms
CEO Foreword

2.0	MEETING THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE:
THE NEED FOR CCS
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS
Global CCS Facilities Update
Policy Levers for Accelerating Deployment
Global CO2 Storage Overview
Legal and Regulatory Overview

4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

REGIONAL OVERVIEWSInternational Climate Policy Overview
Americas
EuropeMiddle East and Central Asia
Asia Pacific5.0	CCS DEVELOPMENT:TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS
5.1
Natural Gas
5.2 Hydrogen
5.3
CCS in the Power Sector
5.4	Bioenergy with Carbon Captureand Storage (BECCS)
5.5
Direct Air Capture (DAC)
5.6 CO2 Utilisation
5.7 CCS Innovation
5.8 Industry’s Transition to a Net-zero Future
6.0

APPENDICES

7.0

REFERENCES

6.0 Appendices6.1 Large Scale CCS Facilities in Operation

6.1
LARGE SCALE CCS
FACILITIES IN OPERATION
NO. TITLESTATUS

COUNTRYOPERATIONDATEINDUSTRYCAPTURECAPACITY(Mtpa)CAPTURETYPE

STORAGETYPE

1GORGON CARBONDIOXIDE INJECTION

OperatingAustralia

2019

Natural Gas
Processing

3.4 - 4.0

Industrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological
Storage2

JILIN OIL FIELD CO2-EOR

Operating

China

2018

Natural Gas
Processing

0.6

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery3

ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL CARBONCAPTURE AND STORAGE

OperatingUnited Statesof America

2017

Ethanol
Production

1

Industrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological
Storage

4

PETRA NOVA CARBON CAPTURE

OperatingUnited Statesof America

2017

Power
Generation

1.4

Postcombustion
captureEnhanced Oil
Recovery5

ABU DHABI CCS (PHASE 1 BEING
EMIRATES STEEL INDUSTRIES)

OperatingUnited ArabEmirates

2016

Iron and Steel
Production

0.8

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery6

QUEST

OperatingCanada2015

Hydrogen
Production for
Oil Refining

1

Industrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological
Storage

7

UTHMANIYAH CO2-EOR
DEMONSTRATION

Operating

Saudi Arabia

2015

Natural Gas
Processing

0.8

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery

8

BOUNDARY DAM CCS

OperatingCanada2014

Power
Generation1

Postcombustion
captureEnhanced Oil
Recovery9

PETROBRAS SANTOS BASIN
PRE-SALT OIL FIELD CCS

OperatingBrazil2013

Natural Gas
Processing

3

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery

10

COFFEYVILLEGASIFICATION PLANT

OperatingUnited Statesof America

2013

Fertiliser
Production

1

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery11

AIR PRODUCTS STEAMMETHANE REFORMER

OperatingUnited Statesof America

2013

Hydrogen
Production for
Oil Refining

1

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery

12

LOST CABIN GAS PLANT

OperatingUnited Statesof America

2013

Natural Gas
Processing

0.9

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery13

CENTURY PLANT

OperatingUnited Statesof America

2010

Natural Gas
Processing

8.4

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery14SNØHVIT CO2 STORAGE

Operating

Norway2008

Natural Gas
Processing

0.7

Industrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological
Storage

15

GREAT PLAINS SYNFUELSPLANT AND WEYBURN-MIDALE

OperatingUnited Statesof America

2000

Synthetic
Natural Gas

3

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery16

SLEIPNER CO2 STORAGE

Operating

Norway1996

Natural Gas
Processing

1

Industrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological
Storage

17

SHUTE CREEK GASPROCESSING PLANT

OperatingUnited Statesof America

1986

Natural Gas
Processing

7

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery18

ENID FERTILISER

OperatingUnited Statesof America

1982

Fertiliser
Production

0.7

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery19

TERRELL NATURAL GASPROCESSING PLANT (FORMERLYVAL VERDE NATURAL GAS PLANTS)

OperatingUnited Statesof America

1972

Natural Gas
Processing

0.4 - 0.5

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery716.2
LARGE SCALE CCS FACILITIES IN CONSTRUCTION,ADVANCED AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
NO. TITLESTATUS

COUNTRYOPERATIONDATEINDUSTRYCAPTURECAPACITY(Mtpa)CAPTURETYPE

STORAGETYPE

20

ALBERTA CARBON TRUNK LINE In("ACTL") WITH NORTH WEST
Construction
REDWATER PARTNERSHIP'S
STURGEON REFINERY CO2
STREAM

Canada2020

Hydrogen
Production
for Oil Refining

1.2 - 1.4

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery21

ALBERTA CARBON TRUNK LINE In("ACTL") WITH AGRIUM CO2Construction
STREAM

Canada2020

Fertiliser
Production

0.3 - 0.6

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery

22

SINOPEC QILUPETROCHEMICAL CCS

InConstruction

China

2020

Chemical
Production

0.40

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery23

YANCHANG INTEGRATEDCARBON CAPTURE AND
STORAGE DEMONSTRATION

In
Construction

China2020 - 2021

Chemical
Production

0.41

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery24

WABASH CO2 SEQUESTRATION Advanced
development

United Statesof America

2022

Fertiliser
production

1.5-1.75

Industrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological Storage

25

PORT OF ROTTERDAM CCUS
BACKBONE INITIATIVE(PORTHOS)

Advanceddevelopment

Netherlands

2023

Various2.0 -5.0

Various

Dedicated
Geological Storage

26

NORWAY FULL CHAIN CCS

Advanceddevelopment

Norway2023-2024

Cementproduction andwaste-to-energy

0.80

Various

Dedicated
Geological Storage

27

LAKE CHARLES METHANOLAdvanceddevelopment

United Statesof America

2024

Chemicalproduction

4.20

Industrial
separation

Enhanced oil
recovery28

ABU DHABI CCS PHASE 2 NATURAL GAS PROCESSING
PLANT

Advanceddevelopment

United ArabEmirates

2025

Natural gas
processing

1.9 - 2.3

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery29

DRY FORK INTEGRATEDCOMMERCIAL CCS

Advanceddevelopment

United Statesof America

2025Power generation

3.00

Postcombustion
captureDedicated
Geological Storage
or Enhanced Oil
Recovery30

CARBONSAFE ILLINOIS –MACON COUNTYAdvanceddevelopment

United Statesof America

2025Power generationand ethanol
production

2.0 - 5.0

Postcombustion
capture andindustrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological Storageand Enhanced Oil
Recovery

31

PROJECT TUNDRA

Advanceddevelopment

United Statesof America

2025 - 2026

Power generation

3.1 - 3.6

Postcombustion
captureDedicated
Geological Storage
or Enhanced Oil
Recovery32

INTEGRATED MID-CONTINENT
STACKED CARBON STORAGE
HUB

Advanceddevelopment

United Statesof America

2025 - 2035

Ethanol
1.90
production, power
generation and/or
refinery

Various

Dedicated
Geological Storageand Enhanced Oil
Recovery33

CARBONNET

Advanceddevelopment

Australia

2020'sUnder evaluation

3.00

Under
Evaluation

Dedicated
Geological Storage34

OXY AND WHITE ENERGYETHANOL EOR FACILITY

Early
development

United Statesof America

2021

Ethanol
production

0.6-0.7

Industrial
separation

Enhanced Oil
Recovery

35

SINOPEC EASTERNCHINA CCS

Early
development

China

2021

Fertiliser
production

0.50

Industrial
separation

Enhanced oil
recovery36

HYDROGEN 2 MAGNUM (H2M)

Early
development

Netherlands

2024Power Generation

2.00

Under
Evaluation

Dedicated
Geological Storage72

6.0 Appendices6.2 Large Scale CCS Facilities in Construction, Advanced and Early Development

NO. TITLESTATUS

COUNTRYOPERATIONDATEINDUSTRYCAPTURECAPACITY(Mtpa)CAPTURETYPE

STORAGE
TYPE

37

THE CLEAN GAS PROJECT

Early
development

UnitedKingdom2024-2025

Power generation

1.7 - 2.0

Postcombustion
captureDedicated
Geological Storage

38

CALEDONIA CLEAN ENERGY

Earlydevelopment

UnitedKingdom2025

Power generation

3.00

Postcombustion
captureDedicated
Geological Storage

39

OXY AND CARBONENGINEERING DIRECT AIR
CAPTURE AND EOR FACILITY

Early
development

United Statesof America

2025

N/A

1.0

Direct Air
CaptureEnhanced Oil
Recovery40

SOUTH WEST HUB

Earlydevelopment

Australia

2025

Fertiliser
production andpower generation

2.50

Industrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological Storage

41

HYNET NORTH WEST

Early
development

UnitedKingdomMid-2020's

Hydrogenproduction

2.00

Industrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological Storage

42

PROJECT ECO2S: EARLY
CO2 STORAGE COMPLEXIN KEMPER COUNTY

Earlydevelopment

United Statesof America

2026

In Evaluation

3.00

In Evaluation

Dedicated
Geological Storage

43

NORTHERN GAS NETWORK
H21 NORTH OF ENGLAND

Early
development

UnitedKingdom2026 - 2028

Hydrogenproduction

1.5 - 20

Industrial
separation

Dedicated
Geological Storage

44

ERVIA CORK CCS

Early
development

Ireland2028

Power generationand hydrogenproduction

2.50

Under
Evaluation

Dedicated
Geological Storage

45

CHINA RESOURCES POWER(HAIFENG) INTEGRATEDCARBON CAPTURE
AND SEQUESTRATIONDEMONSTRATION

Early
development

China

2020'sPower generation

1.00

Postcombustion
captureDedicated
Geological Storage

46

HUANENG GREENGEN
IGCC PROJECT (PHASE 3)

Early
development

China

2020'sPower generation

2.00

Precombustion
capture(gasification)

Under evaluation

47

KOREA-CCS 1 & 2

Early
development

South Korea

2020'sPower generation

1.00

Postcombustion
captureDedicated
Geological Storage

48

SHENHUA NINGXIA CTL

Early
development

China

2020'sCoal-to-liquids
(CTL)

2.00

Industrial
separation

Under evaluation

49

SINOPEC SHENGLIPOWER PLANT CCS

Early
development

China

2020'sPower generation

1.00

Postcombustion
captureEnhanced oil
recovery50

NET ZERO TEESSIDE

Early
development

UnitedKingdom

2020'sVarious0.8 - 10

Various

Dedicated
Geological Storage

51

ACORN SCALABLECCS DEVELOPMENT

Early
development

UnitedKingdomEnd-2020's

Various3.0 - 4.0

Under
Evaluation

Dedicated
Geological Storage

73

6.3
HYDROGEN STRATEGIES WITH CCSCOUNTRYINCLUSION/DETAIL/IMPORTANCE OF CCS IN HYDROGEN STRATEGYAUSTRALIA

Consultations by the National Hydrogen Working Group to develop a National Hydrogen Strategy by theend of 2019 are already considering the production of hydrogen using fossil fuels and CCS. In addition,
construction at the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain (HESC) liquefaction and loading facility began in
July 2019. The HESC is a project, supported by a consortium of government and industry partners from
Australia and Japan, will look at the feasibility of turning brown coal from the Latrobe Valley into hydrogento be shipped to Japan and using the CarbonNet CCS project to transport and store emissions in the nearby
Gippsland basin.

JAPAN

Host of the 2019 G20, Japan used this important platform to highlight hydrogen. This included hosting thefirst Hydrogen Energy Ministerial meeting and, in the same month, adopted a carbon-neutrality strategy
that includes innovation goals for both carbon capture and hydrogen and launched a Japan H2 Mobility
program which aims build 80 refueling stations by 2021143.

UNITED STATESThe United States also showed progress in the development of hydrogen production with CCS with provisions
added to the 45Q tax credit to incentivise the conversion of CO2 and other products, and included conversion
via combination with hydrogen144. In addition, the amendment of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard
to enable CCUS came into effect. This created a way for companies that produce hydrogen via SMR withcarbon capture to generate credits, while also incentivising the roll-out of hydrogen-fuelling capacity – thus
eliminating one of the barriers to adoption.

UNITED KINGDOMIn the UK, the majority of hydrogen production is expected to use natural gas with CCS and is being driven
by the dedicated policies, reviews and investments in hydrogen as a low emissions technology to decarbonisetransport and heat sectors, as well as industry145.
For example, the H21 Leeds Citygate project, after a detailed economic and technical feasibility study
conducted in 2016, has proposed to decarbonise the existing natural gas network in the UK city of Leeds by
converting it to 100 per cent hydrogen. The project involves a process of hydrogen production using Steam
Methane Reforming of natural gas; the associated carbon emissions will be sequestered under the North Sea.

EUROPEThe Hydrogen Roadmap Europe146 was published in February 2019 by FCH JU, which consists of members
representing the European Commission, Hydrogen Europe and Hydrogen Research Europe. With the aimof supporting research and development in fuel cell and hydrogen energy technologies, the study focuseson pathways for their large-scale deployment until 2050. The production of hydrogen from steam methane
reforming processes is highlighted as an avenue for the decarbonization of the transport and industrial
sectors. In particular CCS is recommended for companies as a proven method of producing very low carbonhydrogen on a large scale.
The EU’s “Clean Planet for All’ decarbonization strategy was published by the European Commission in
November 2018. The strategy considers several pathways to reach decarbonization by 2050. The productionof hydrogen from natural gas steam reforming using CCS, for energy storage purposes, energy carrier
purposes in the transport, heat and industrial sectors and as a feedstock for industry is considered as apotential decarbonization strategy in these sectors.

NETHERLANDS

Outlines of a Hydrogen Roadmap147 was drafted by TKI New Gas (Top Sector Energy) on behalf ofthe Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. Published in March 2018, the report explores
decarbonisation pathways using hydrogen in the industrial and transport sectors. The report recommends
exploring hydrogen production from natural gas with CCS (blue hydrogen) in order to accelerate large-scale
application of hydrogen.

74

7.0
REFERENCES

75

1.0

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

INTRODUCTION
About Global CCS Institute
About the Report
Acronyms
CEO Foreword

2.0	MEETING THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE:
THE NEED FOR CCS
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

GLOBAL STATUS OF CCS
Global CCS Facilities Update
Policy Levers for Accelerating Deployment
Global CO2 Storage Overview
Legal and Regulatory Overview

4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

REGIONAL OVERVIEWSInternational Climate Policy Overview
Americas
EuropeMiddle East and Central Asia
Asia Pacific5.0	CCS DEVELOPMENT:TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS
5.1
Natural Gas
5.2 Hydrogen
5.3
CCS in the Power Sector
5.4	Bioenergy with Carbon Captureand Storage (BECCS)
5.5
Direct Air Capture (DAC)
5.6 CO2 Utilisation
5.7 CCS Innovation
5.8 Industry’s Transition to a Net-zero Future
6.0

APPENDICES

7.0

REFERENCES

7.0 References

7.0
REFERENCES

12.

Saskpower (2019), ‘Boundary Dam Carbon Capture Project’,accessed October 15, 2019, from <https://www.saskpower.
com/Our-Power-Future/Infrastructure-Projects/CarbonCapture-and-Storage/ Boundary-Dam-Carbon-CaptureProject>.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

13.

US National Energy Technology Laboratory (2019),‘CarbonSAFE’, accessed from https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/storage-infrastructure/carbonsafe>.

14.

U.S. Department of Energy (2019), ‘FOA 2058: Front-End
Engineering Design (FEED) Studies for Carbon Capture Systems
on Coal and Natural Gas Power Plants’, accessed from <https://www.energy.gov/fe/foa-2058-front-end-engineering-designfeed-studies-carboncapture- systems-coal-and-natural-gas>.

15.

U.S. Department of Energy (2019), ‘FOA 2058: Front-End
Engineering Design (FEED) Studies for Carbon Capture Systems
on Coal and Natural Gas Power Plants’, accessed from <https://www.energy.gov/fe/foa-2058-front-end-engineering-designfeed-studies-carboncapture- systems-coal-and-natural-gas>.

16.

Global CCS Institute (2016), Understanding Industrial
CCS Hubs and Clusters, accessed from https://www.
globalccsinstitute.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/08/
Understanding-Industrial-CCS-hubs-andclusters.pdf>.

17.

Zapantis, A., Townsend, A. and Rassool, D. (2019), Policy
Priorities to Incentivise Large Scale Deployment of CCS,
Global CCS Institute, Melbourne, accessed from < https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/
TL-Report-Policy-prorities-to-incentivise-the-large-scaledeployment-of-CCS-digital-final-2019-1.pdf>.
Northern Lights CCS (2019), ‘Northern Lights Project’,accessed from<https://northernlightsccs.eu/>.

N/A

MEETING THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE:
ROLE OF CCS
1.

2.

3.

International Energy Agency (2019), Global Energy and
CO2 Status Report, accessed from <https://www.International
Energy Agency.org/geco/>.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018), Global
warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts ofglobal warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related
global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context ofstrengthening the global response to the threat of climatechange, accessed from <https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/>.
International Energy Agency (2019), World Energy Outlook
2019, available at <www.International Energy Agency.org/
weo>.

3.0 CCS STATUS
3.1 GLOBAL CCS FACILITIES UPDATE
4.

Global CCS Institute (2019a), ‘CO2RE Database, Facilities
Report’, accessed from <https://CO2RE.co/FacilityData>.

18.

5.

Global CCS Institute (2018), The Global Status of CCS
Report 2018, Melbourne, Australia, accessed from <https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-report/>.

3.2 POLICY LEVERS FOR GROWTH

6.

ExxonMobil (2019), 2019 Energy and Carbon Summary,accessed from <https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/
Global/Files/energyand-carbon-summary/Energy-and-carbonsummary.pdf>.

7.

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (2019), Great Plains Synfuels
Plant, accessed from <https://basinelectric.com/
sites/CMS/files/files/pdf/Fact-Sheets-Media-Kit/DGCfact-sheet-8-19.pdf>.

8.

Equinor (2018), Equinor - Climate Change 2018, accessed from<https://www.equinor.com/content/dam/statoil/documents/
sustainability-reports/CDP-Equinor-response-2018.pdf>.

9.

OGCI (2019), OGCI 2019 Annual Report Scaling up action
aiming for net zero emissions, accessed from <https://oilandgasclimateinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/
OGCI-Annual-Report-2019.pdf>.

10.

Air Products (2019), Air Products 2019 Sustainability Report,
accessed from <http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/
PDF/company/2019-Sustainability-Report.pdf>.

11.

77

Shell (2019), ‘Quest carbon capture and storage’, accessed
October 10, 2019, from <https://www.shell.ca/en_ca/about-us/
projects-and-sites/quest-carbon-capture-and-storage-project.
html>.

19.

OECD/International Energy Agency and United Nations
Industrial Development Organization (2011), Technology
Roadmap Carbon Capture and Storage in Industrial
Applications, available at <https://www.unido.org/sites/
default/files/2011-09/CCS_Industry_Roadmap_WEB_1.pdf>.

20.

Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (2017), Report of theHigh-Level commission on Carbon Prices, available at <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff9c5ce4b0a53decccfb4c/
t/59b7f2409f8dce5316811916/1505227332748/
CarbonPricing_FullReport.pdf>.

21.

World Bank Group (2018), State and Trends of Carbon
Pricing 2018, World Bank Group, Washington DC,
available at <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
bitstream/handle/10986/29687/9781464812927.
pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y>.

3.3 GLOBAL STORAGE OVERVIEW
22.

Sources of data from Storage Map:
ADB (2013), Prospects for carbon capture and storage
in Southeast Asia. Asia Development Bank: Manilla.
Aktouf, A. and Bentellis, A. (2016), ‘CO2-storage assessmentand effective capacity in Algeria’, Springer Plus. Springer
International Publishing, 5(1), pp. 1–24.

Carneiro, J. F. and Alberto, M. (2014), ‘Preliminary
assessment of CO2 storage potential in the Rovuma
sedimentary basin, Mozambique’, Energy Procedia.
Elsevier B.V., 63, pp. 5141–5152..

24.

International Energy Agency (2017), Energy Technology
Perspectives 2017, OECD/INTERNATIONAL ENERGYAGENCY, Paris, available at <https://www.International
Energy Agency.org/etp/>.

Carbon Storage Taskforce (2010), ‘National Carbon Mappingand Infrastructure Plan – Australia’. Energy and Tourism:
Canberra. P. 138.

25.

Mac Dowell et al. (2017), ‘The role of CO2 capture andutilization in mitigating climate change’, Nature Climate
Change, vol. 7, pp. 243-249.

Poulsen, N. et al. (2011), ‘CO2StoP Final Report Assessmentof CO2 storage potential in Europe. European Commission
Contract No ENER / C1 / 154-2011-SI2 . 611598’.

26.

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme, (2017), CCS Industry Build-out rates –Comparison with industry analogues, 2014/TR6.

National Energy Technology Laboratory (2015), ‘Carbon
Storage Atlas – Fifth Edition’. US Department of Energy, p. 114.

27.

International Energy Agency (2015), Storing CO2 throughEnhanced Oil Recovery: Combining EOR with CO2 storage(EOR+) for profit.

Field, B. et al. (2009), New Zealand carbon dioxide storagesite assessment: Phase 2. Cooperative Research Centre forGreenhouse Gas Technologies, Canberra, Australia, CO2CRC
Publication Number RPT09-1579. p.58.
Hedriana, O. et al. (2017), ‘Assessment of CO2- EOR and Storage
Capacity in South Sumatera and West Java Basins’, Energy
Procedia. The Author(s), 114(November 2016), pp. 4666–4678.
International Energy Agency (2015), ‘Storing CO2 throughEnhanced Oil Recovery, Combining EOR with CO2 storage(EOR+) for profit’. OECD/INTERNATIONAL ENERGYAGENCY: Paris.

3.4 LEGAL AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW
N/A

4.0 REGIONAL OVERVIEWS
4.1 INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE POLICY OVERVIEW
28.

Zakkour, P., and Wolfgang, H., (2019), A Mechanism for CCS
in the Post-Paris Era. KS--2018-DP52. Riyadh: KAPSARC. doi:
https://doi.org/10.30573/KS--2019-DP52

Holloway, S. et al. (2008), ‘A regional assessment of the potential
for CO2 storage in the Indian subcontinent’, INTERNATIONALENERGY AGENCY GHG R&D Programme. 2008/2, May 2008.

29.

UNFCCC (2019), Communication of long-term strategies,
accessed from <https://unfccc.int/process/the-parisagreement/long-term-strategies>.

Junin. R. et al. (2016), ‘Evaluation of potential sedimentarybasins in Malaysia for carbon dioxide storage. WEENTECH
Proceedings in Energy 16 th -18 th August 2016 HeriotWatt University , Edinburgh United Kingdom Volume 3 :International Conference on Energy ’.

30.

International Energy Agency (2013), Technology Roadmap– Carbon capture and storage, accessed from <http://www.
International Energy Agency.org/publications/freepublications/publication/technology-roadmap-carbon-capture-andstorage-2013.html>.

Kim, A. et al. (2014), ‘Site characterization and geotechnicalaspects on geological storage of CO2 in Korea’, Geosciences
Journal, 18(2), pp. 167–179.

31.

Sources of data for Timeline:
Droge, S. and Rattani, V (2019), “After the Katowice Climate
Summit, Building Blocks for the EU Climate Agenda”, SWP
Comment 2019/C 09, February 2019, doi:10.18449/2019C09:
https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019C09/.

Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (2011), ‘CO2 Storage
Atlas – Norwegian Sea’ Norwegian Petroleum Directorate:
Stavanger, p. 60.

Fransen, T., E. Northrop, K. Mogelgaard, and K. Levin (2017)“Enhancing NDCs by 2020: Achieving the Goals of the Paris
Agreement.” Working Paper. Washington, DC. World Resources
Institute. Available at <http://www.wri.org/publication/
NDC-enhancement-by-2020>.

Takahashi, T. et al. (2009), ‘Estimation of CO2Aquifer Storage
Potential in Japan’, Energy Procedia, 1(1), pp. 2631–2638.
Secretaría de Energía (SENER), (2014), ‘CCUS Technology
Roadmap in Mexico. Secretaría de Energía. p.33.
Viebahn, P., Vallentin, D. and Höller, S. (2014), ‘Prospectsof carbon capture and storage (CCS) in India’s power sector An integrated assessment’, Applied Energy. Elsevier Ltd,117, pp. 62–75.
Viljoen, J. H. A. et al., (2010), Technical Report on the
Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide in South Africa.
Council for Geoscience. P. 240.
Wei, N. et al. (2015), ‘Regional resource distribution of
onshore carbon geological utilization in China’, Journalof CO2 Utilization, 11, pp. 20–30.
23.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018), Global
warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts ofglobal warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related
global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context ofstrengthening the global response to the threat of climatechange, accessed from <https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/>.

4.2 AMERICAS
32.

Global CCS Institute (2019a), ‘CO2RE Database, Facilities
Report’, accessed from <https://CO2RE.co/FacilityData>.

33.

Clean Air Task Force (2019), Factsheet: State and utility climatechange targets shift to carbon reductions, technology, accessedfrom <https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CESJune-30-2019.pdf>.

34.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2019),
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,
accessed from <https://www.epa.gov/ghg-emissions/inventory-us-greenhousegas-emissions-and-sinks>.

35.

U.S. Energy Information Association (2019), New U.S. power
plants expected to be mostly natural gas combined-cycle andsolar PV, accessed from <https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
detail.php?id=38612>.
78

7.0 References

36.

Clemmer, S., Richardson, J., Sattler, S. and Lochbaum, D.,(2018), The Nuclear Power Dilemma Declining Profits, Plant
Closures, and the Threat of Rising Carbon Emissions, Unionof Concerned Scientists 2018, accessed from <https://www.
ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-PowerDilemma-full-report.pdf>.

46.

Drax (2019), Carbon dioxide now being captured
in first of its kind BECCS pilot, accessed from,<https://www.drax.com/press_release/worldfirst-co2-beccs-ccus/>.

47.

Pale Blue Dot (2019), Acorn CCS & Hydrogen Project,
accessed from <https://pale-blu.com/acorn/>.

48.

Global CCS Institute (2016), “Global Status of CCS: Special
Report, Understanding industrial hubs and clusters”, available
at <https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/
uploads/2019/08/Understanding-Industrial-CCS-hubsandclusters. Pdf>

37.

Nagabhushan, D. and Thompson, J., (2019), Carbon captureand storage in the US power sector - The impact of 45Q Federal
Tax Credits, Clean Air Task Force, Boston, accessed from<https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_
CCS_United_States_Power_Sector.pdf>.

38.

International Energy Agency (2019), Market Report Series:
Gas 2019, accessed from <https://webstore.International
Energy Agency.org/market-report-series-gas-2019>.

49.

Align CCUS (2019), ‘About the Project’,accessed from <http://www.alignccus.eu/about-project>.

39.

Figure 15 Source data:

50.

Figure 19 adapted from:
Overa, S. (2019), Telling the Norwegian CCS Story, Northern
Lights: A European CO2 Transport and Storage Project,[Video Webinar], 9 May 2019, available at: < https://www.
globalccsinstitute.com/resources/audio-and-visual-library/webinar-telling-the-norwegian-ccs-story-part-iii-northernlights-a-european-co2-transport-and-storage-project/>.

Bennet, S. and Stanley, T. (2018), Commentary: US budget bill
may help carbon capture get back on track, International Energy
Agency, Paris, available at: < https://www.iea.org/newsroom/
news/2018/march/commentary-us-budget-bill-may-helpcarbon-capture-get-back-on-track.html>.
40.

Townsend A. and Havercroft, I. (2019), The LCFS and CCS
Protocol: An Overview for policymakers and project developers,
Global CCS Institute 2019, Melbourne, available at < https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
LCFS-and-CCS-Protocol_digital_version-2.pdf>.

4.3 EUROPE
41.

European Commission (2018), A European strategic long-term
vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral
economy, accessed from <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0773>.

42.

European Commission (2018), Proposal for a Regulation of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council on the establishment ofa framework to facilitate sustainable investment, accessed from,<https://ec.europa.eu/info/
law/better-regulation/initiative/1185/publication/238025/
attachment/090166e5baea4e23_en>.

43.

EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (2019),
Financing a Sustainable European Economy Taxonomy
Technical Report, accessed from <https://ec.europa.eu/info/
sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/
documents/190618-sustainable-finance-teg-report-taxonomy_
en.pdf>.

44.

CEPS (2018), ‘CCUS in the port of Rotterdam, Project Porthos’,[PowerPoint Presentation], available at <http://www.ceps-ech.
eu/sites/default/files/MDriessen_CEPS%20workshop%20
4%20december%202018.pdf>.

51.

4.4 MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA
52.

International Energy Agency (2018), The Future of
Petrochemicals Towards more sustainable plastics andfertilisers, Executive Summary, available at <https://
webstore.International Energy Agency.org/download/summary/2310?fileName=English-FuturePetrochemicals-ES.pdf>

53.

Consoli, C. (2018), CCS Storage Indicator (CCS-SI),
Global CCS Institute, Melbourne, available at <https://globalccsinstitute.com>

54.

Jaganathan, J. (2018), ‘Australia grabs world’s biggest
LNG exporter crown from Qatar in Nov’, Reuters, 10 December[Online], available at <https://www.reuters.com/article/usaustralia-qatar-lng/australia-grabs-worlds-biggest-lng-exportercrown-from-qatar-in-nov-idUSKBN1O907N>.

55.

International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen,
Seizing today’s opportunities, INTERNATIONAL ENERGYAGENCY, Paris, available at < https://www.International
Energy Agency.org/hydrogen2019/>

56.

Adnoc (2019), ADNOC Reinforces Leadership Role andCommitment to Environmental Stewardship as It Strengthens
Its Position as One of the Lowest Greenhouse Gas Emittersin the Oil and Gas Industry, accessed from <https://www.
adnoc.ae/en/news-and-media/pressreleases/2019/adnocreinforces-leadership-role-and-commitment-to-environmentalstewardship>.

57.

Saadi, D. (2018), ‘Adnoc to expand carbon capture projects
to reduce emissions and boost oil recovery’, The National, 28
November [Online], available at <https://www.thenational.ae/
business/energy/adnoc-toexpand-carbon-capture-projects-toreduce-emissions-and-boost-oil-recovery-1.796756>.

European Commission (2019), Candidate PCI projects incross-border carbon dioxide (CO2) transport networks in viewof preparing the 4th PCI list, accessed from <https://ec.europa.
eu/info/sites/info/files/detailed_information_regarding_the_candidate_projects_in_co2_ network_0.pdf>
European Commission (2017), Teesside CO2 hub (United
Kingdom,in further phases Netherlands, Belgium, Germany)
Cross-border carbone dioxide network, available at <http://
ec.europa.eu/energy/maps/pci_fiches/pci_12_1_en_2017.pdf>.
45.

79European Commission (2019), Innovation Fund,
accessed from <https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/
innovation-fund_en>.

European Commission (2019), The Potential for CCS
and CCU in Europe, Report to the thirty second meetingof the European Gas Regulatory Forum 5-6 June 2019,available at <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/
iogp_-_report_-_ccs_ccu.pdf

58.

BP (2019), BP Statistical Review – 2019 Middle East’s energy
market in 2018, accessed from, <https://www.bp.com/content/
dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energyeconomics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-middleeast-insights.pdf>

59.

Zawadzki, S. and Kravtsova, E. (2019), ‘Qatar opens CO2
storage plant, targets 5 mln T a year by 2025’, 8 October[Online] available at, <https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/
qatar-opens-co2-storage-plant-targets-5-mln-t-a-yearby-2025-2019-10-08>.

60.

61.

73.

International Energy Agency (2019), Market Report Series:
Gas 2019, accessed from <https://webstore.International
Energy Agency.org/market-report-series-gas-2019>.

74.

International Energy Agency (2019), Market Report Series:
Gas 2019, accessed from <https://webstore.International
Energy Agency.org/market-report-series-gas-2019>.

75.

International Energy Agency (2018), World Energy Outlook
2018, International Energy Agency, Paris, available at<https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2018-en>.

76.

International Energy Agency (2018), World Energy Outlook
2018, International Energy Agency, Paris, available at<https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2018-en>.

77.

Carbon Brief (2019), Mapped: The world’s coal power plants,
accessed from <https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worldscoal-power-plants>.

International Energy Agency (2019), Market Report Series:
Gas 2019, accessed from <https://webstore.International
Energy Agency.org/market-report-series-gas-2019>.

78.

International Energy Agency (2018), Coal 2018: Analysis andForecasts to 2023, International Energy Agency, Paris, availableat < https://webstore.International Energy Agency.org/marketreport-series-coal-2018>.

Irlam, L. (2017), Global Costs of Carbon Captureand Storage, Global CCS Institute, accessed from<https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/archive/hub/
publications/201688/global-ccs-cost-updatev4.pdf>.

79.

International Energy Agency (2019), Market Report Series:
Gas 2019, available from <https://webstore.International
Energy Agency.org/market-report-series-gas-2019>.

International Energy Agency (2018), World Energy
Outlook 2018, International Energy Agency, Paris,
available at <https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2018-en>.

80.

Global CCS Institute (2019a), ‘CO2RE Database, Facilities
Report’, accessed from <https://CO2RE.co/FacilityData>.

81.

International Energy Agency (2018), World Energy
Outlook 2018, International Energy Agency, Paris,
available at <https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2018-en>.

82.

International Energy Agency (2019), Market Report Series:
Gas (2019), accessed from <https://webstore.International
Energy Agency.org/market-report-series-gas-2019>.

83.

International Energy Agency (2018), World Energy
Outlook 2018, International Energy Agency, Paris,
available at <https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2018-en>

84.

Chevron Australia (2019), Fact Sheet: Gorgon Carbon Dioxide
Injection Project, accessed from, <https://australia.chevron.
com/-/media/australia/publications/documents/gorgon-co2injection-project.pdf>.

Aljazeera (2019), ‘Qatar building large CO2 storage plant’,
8 October [Online] available at, <https://www.aljazeera.
com/news/2019/10/qatar-building-massive-co2-storageplant-191008103148682.html>.
International Energy Agency (2019), Statistics databrowser, accessed from <https://www.International
Energy Agency.org/statistics/>.

4.5 ASIA PACIFIC
62.

63.

64.

65.

5.0 CCS DEVELOPMENT:TECHNOLOGY & APPLICATIONS
5.1 NATURAL GAS: DECARBONISING
POWER, INDUSTRY AND KICK-STARTING
THE ENERGY TRANSITIONWorld Steel Association (2019), World Steel in Figures
2019, accessed from <https://www.worldsteel.org/en/
dam/jcr:96d7a585-e6b2-4d63-b943-4cd9ab621a91/
World%2520Steel%2520in%2520Figures%25202019.pdf>.

66.

Global Cement (2017), Global Cement Top 100 Report2017 – 2018, accessed from <https://www.globalcement.
com/magazine/articles/1054-global-cement-top-100report-2017-2018>.

67.

Global CCS Institute (2019a), ‘CO2RE Database, Facilities
Report’, accessed from <https://CO2RE.co/FacilityData>.

68.

International Energy Agency (2019), Global Energy and CO2
Status Report, accessed from <https://www.International
Energy Agency.org/geco/>.

69.

Carbon Brief (2019), Guest post: How plans for new coal arechanging around the world, accessed from <https://www.
carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-powerplants>.

85.

Carbon Brief (2019), Guest post: How plans for new coal arechanging around the world, accessed from <https://www.
carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-powerplants>.

Sepulveda, N. A., Jenkins, J. D., de Sisternes, F. J., & Lester, R. K.
(2018). The role of firm low-carbon electricity resources in deep
decarbonization of power generation. Joule, 2(11), 2403-2420.

86.

International Energy Agency (2019), “Transforming Industry
through CCUS”, International Energy Agency, Paris, available
at <www.International Energy Agency.org/publications/
reports/TransformingIndustrythroughCCUS/>.

International Energy Agency (2019), Carbon capture, utilisationand storage, accessed from <https://www.International Energy
Agency.org/topics/carbon-capture-and-storage/>.

87.

International Energy Agency (2018), World Energy
Outlook 2018, International Energy Agency, Paris,
available at <https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2018-en>.

70.

71.

72.

International Energy Agency (2018), “Energy Policies
of IEA Countries, Australia 2018 Review”, International
Energy Agency, Paris, available at <https://www.
iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
EnergyPoliciesofIEACountriesAustralia2018Review.pdf>

807.0 References

5.2 HYDROGEN
88.

Kosturjak, A., Dey, T., Young, M.D., Whetton, S. (2019),
Advancing Hydrogen: Learning from 19 plans to advancehydrogen from across the globe, Future Fuels CRC, accessedfrom <https://www.futurefuelscrc.com/blog/2019/07/newreport-shows-global-hydrogen-focus>.

103. Bruce S, Temminghoff M, Hayward J, Schmidt E,
Munnings C, Palfreyman D, Hartley P (2018),
National Hydrogen Roadmap. CSIRO, Australia.
104. Zapantis, A., Townsend, A. and Rassool, D. (2019),
Policy Priorities to Incentivise Large Scale Deployment of CCS,
Global CCS Institute, Melbourne, accessed from < https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/
TL-Report-Policy-prorities-to-incentivise-the-large-scaledeployment-of-CCS-digital-final-2019-1.pdf>.

89.

International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen,
Seizing today’s opportunities, International Energy Agency,
Paris, available at < https://www.International Energy Agency.
org/hydrogen2019/>.

90.

Commonwealth of Australia (2018), Hydrogen for Australia’s
Future, available at: <http://www.coagenergycouncil.gov.au>.

91.

International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen,
Seizing today’s opportunities, International Energy Agency,
Paris, available at < https://www.International Energy Agency.
org/hydrogen2019/>.

92.

International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen,
Seizing today’s opportunities, International Energy Agency,
Paris, available at < https://www.International Energy Agency.
org/hydrogen2019/>.

106. Boston, A., Bongers, G., Byrom, S. (2018), Renewables and theNEM: What are the limits and what else is needed to go zero?,Gamma Energy Technology P/L, Brisbane, Australia, accessedfrom < https://anlecrd.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/
Rpt-2-Final-web.pdf>.

93.

International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen,
Seizing today’s opportunities, International Energy Agency,
Paris, available at < https://www.International Energy Agency.
org/hydrogen2019/>.

107. International Energy Agency (2018), World Energy Outlook
2018, International Energy Agency, Paris, available at <https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2018-en>.

94.

Global CCS Institute (2019b), ‘CO2RE Database, Climate
Change Report’, accessed from <https://CO2RE.co/
ClimateChange>.

108. International Energy Agency (2019), Securing Investments
in Low Carbon Power Generation Sources, accessed from<https://webstore.International Energy Agency.org/securinginvestments-in-low-carbon-power-generation-sources>.

95.

European Commission (2018), A Clean Planet for all A European
strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitiveand climate neutral economy, accessed from <https://ec.europa.
eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en>.

109. International Energy Agency (2019), Tracking Clean Energy
Progress, accessed from <https://www.International Energy
Agency.org/tcep/>.

96.

Kosturjak, A., Dey, T., Young, M.D., Whetton, S. (2019),
Advancing Hydrogen: Learning from 19 plans to advancehydrogen from across the globe, Future Fuels CRC, accessedfrom <https://www.futurefuelscrc.com/blog/2019/07/newreport-shows-global-hydrogen-focus>.

5.4 BIOENERGY WITH CARBON CAPTURE AND
STORAGE (BECCS)

97.

Committee on Climate Change (2018), Hydrogen in a lowcarbon economy, accessed from <https://www.theccc.org.uk/
wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Hydrogen-in-a-low-carboneconomy.pdf>.

98.

NETL. (n.d.) (2019), Great Plains Synfuels Plant, accessed from<https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/
gasification/gasifipedia/great-plains>.

99.

Global CCS Institute (2019a), ‘CO2RE Database, Facilities
Report’, accessed from <https://CO2RE.co/FacilityData>.

100. International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen,
Seizing today’s opportunities, International Energy Agency,
Paris, available at < https://www.International Energy Agency.
org/hydrogen2019/>.
101. International Energy Agency (2019), The Future of Hydrogen,
Seizing today’s opportunities, International Energy Agency,
Paris, available at < https://www.International Energy Agency.
org/hydrogen2019/>.
102. International Energy Agency (2018), World Energy Outlook
2018, International Energy Agency, Paris,
available at <https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2018-en>.

81

5.3 CCS IN POWER SECTOR
105. oskow, P.L., (2019), Challenges for Wholesale Electricity
Markets with Intermittent Renewable Generation at Scale:
The U.S. Experience, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol35.2, pp.291–331, accessed from <https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxrep/grz001>.

110. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018), Global
warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts ofglobal warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related
global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context ofstrengthening the global response to the threat of climatechange, accessed from <https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/>.
111. European Academies Science Advisory Council (2018), Negativeemission technologies: What role in meeting Paris Agreementtargets?, available at <https://www.easac.eu/>.
112. Wilshere, A. and Davies-Barnard, T., (2015), Planetary limits
to BECCS negative emissions, 1104872 / AVOID 2 WPD.2a
Report 1, available at <http://avoid-net-uk.cc.ic.ac.uk/wpcontent/uploads/delightful-downloads/2015/07/Planetarylimits-to-BECCS-negative-emissions-AVOID-2_WPD2a_v1.1.pdf>.
113. FAO (2018), Food Outlook - Biannual Report on Global Food
Markets – November 2018. Rome. 104 pp. Licence: CC BY-NCSA 3.0 IGO.
114. Renewable Fuels Association (2019), Annual Fuel Ethanol
Production, available at, <https://ethanolrfa.org/statistics/
annual-ethanolproduction>.

5.5 DIRECT AIR CAPTURE (DAC)
115. Realmonte, G. et al. (2019), An intermodal assessmentof the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways.
Nature Communications, Volume 10, p.3277.
116. Climeworks (2019), Interview by the Global CCS
Institute [Interview] (2 9 2019).
117. GreenBiz (2019), Inside ExxonMobil’s hookup with carbon
removal venture Global Thermostat, accessed from <https://www.greenbiz.com/article/insideexxonmobils- hookup-carbonremoval-venture thermostat>. [Accessed 1 October 2019].

5.6 CO2 UTILISATION
118. Mac Dowell, N, Fennell, PS, Shah, N & Maitland, GC (2017),‘The role of CO2 capture and utilization in mitigating climatechange’, Nature Climate Change, vol. 7, p. 243,
accessed from <https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3231>.
119. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018), Global
warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts ofglobal warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related
global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context ofstrengthening the global response to the threat of climatechange, accessed from <https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/>.

5.7 CCS INNOVATION
120. Rochelle, GT (2009), ‘Amine Scrubbing for CO2 Capture’,
Science, vol. 325, no. 5948, pp. 1652 LP – 1654, accessedfrom <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5948/
1652.abstract>.
121. Global CCS Institute (2017), Global costs of carbon capture andstorage, Melbourne, Australia, accessed from <http://decarboni.
se/sites/default/files/publications/201688/global-ccs-costupdatev4.pdf>.
122. Global CCS Institute (2019a), ‘CO2RE Database, Facilities
Report’, accessed from <https://CO2RE.co/FacilityData>.
123. World Coal Association (2015), ‘SaskPower’s Case for Carbon
Capture and Storage’, accessed October 1, 2019, from <https://www.worldcoal.org/saskpowers-case-carbon-capture-andstorage>.
124. International CCS Knowledge Centre (2018a), The ShandCCS Feasibility Study Public Report, accessed from <https://
ccsknowledge.com/pub/documents/publications/.Shand CCS
Feasibility Study Public Report_NOV2018.pdf>.
125. NRDC (2018), NRDC Comments on EPA’s NSPS Review
Proposal, accessed from <https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/
files/nrdc-comments-epa-nsps-review-proposal-20190318.
pdf>.
126. International CCS Knowledge Centre (2018a), The ShandCCS Feasibility Study Public Report, accessed from <https://
ccsknowledge.com/pub/documents/publications/.Shand CCS
Feasibility Study Public Report_NOV2018.pdf>.
127. Source data for Figure 27:
International CCS Knowledge Centre (2018a), The ShandCCS Feasibility Study Public Report, accessed from <https://
ccsknowledge.com/pub/documents/publications/.Shand CCS
Feasibility Study Public Report_NOV2018.pdf>.

Petra Nova Parish Holding LLC (2017), W.A. Parish
Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project Topical Report, accessed from <https://www.osti.gov/servlets/
purl/1344080>.
International CCS Knowledge Centre (2018b), Summaryfor Decision Makers on Second Generation CCS Based on
The Shand CCS Feasibility Study, accessed from <https://
ccsknowledge.com/pub/documents/publications/Summaryfor Decision Makers on Second Generation.pdf>.
Rubin, ES, Davison, JE and Herzog, HJ. (2015), ‘The cost of CO2
capture and storage’, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control, vol. 40, pp. 378–400, accessed from <http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583615001814>.

5.8. INDUSTRY’S TRANSITION
TO A NET-ZERO FUTURE
128. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018), Global
warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts ofglobal warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related
global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context ofstrengthening the global response to the threat of climatechange, accessed from <https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/>.
129. Energy Transitions Commission (2018), Mission Possible
Reaching Net-Zero Carbon Emissions from harder-to-abate
sectors by mid-century, accessed from <http://www.energytransitions.org/sites/default/files/ETC_MissionPossible_
FullReport.pdf>.
130. International Energy Agency (2019), “Transforming Industry
through CCUS”, International Energy Agency, Paris, available
at <www.International Energy Agency.org/publications/
reports/TransformingIndustrythroughCCUS/>.
131. International Energy Agency (2019), “Transforming Industry
through CCUS”, International Energy Agency, Paris available
at, <www.International Energy Agency.org/publications/
reports/TransformingIndustrythroughCCUS/>.
132. Lehne, J., and Preston, F. (2018), Making Concrete Change
Innovation in Low-carbon Cement and Concrete, Chatham
House, London, available at <https://reader.chathamhouse.org/
making-concrete-change-innovation-low-carbon-cement-andconcrete>.
133. LEILAC (2019), Successful demonstration of CO2 separation
at Project LEILAC in Belgium, accessed from, <https://www.
project-leilac.eu/successful-co2-separation>.
134. International Energy Agency (2019), Transforming Industry
through CCUS, International Energy Agency, Paris, available
at <www.International Energy Agency.org/publications/
reports/TransformingIndustrythroughCCUS/>.
135. Tata Steel (2019), HIsarna, Sustainable in every sense, accessed
from, <https://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/sustainability/
hisarna>.
136. International Energy Agency (2019), Transforming Industry
through CCUS, International Energy Agency, Paris, available
at <www.International Energy Agency.org/publications/
reports/TransformingIndustrythroughCCUS/>.
137. Source data for Figure 28:
International Energy Agency (2019) Tracking Clean Energy
Progress, accessed from <https://www.International Energy
Agency.org/tcep/>.

82

7.0 References138. Global CCS Institute (2019b) ‘CO2RE Database,
Climate Change Report’, accessed from <https://CO2RE.co/
ClimateChange>.

ENDNOTESi.

Includes methods of utilisation of CO2 that permanently
prevent CO2 from entering the atmosphere, such as incement curing, contribute to emissions abatement.

ii.

Data from the Global CCS Institute CO2RE database as ofNovember 2019 (Global CCS Institute 2019a).

iii.

The advanced development stage in a project’s lifecycle means
greater detailed investigation through front-end engineering
design (FEED) is underway. This may involve steps like choosing
the specific technology to use, examining design and overall
facility costs, obtaining permits and approvals or assessing
key risks to the development. Once this stage is completed,the project may be ready for a final investment decision (FID).

iv.

CO2 Geological Storage Study funded by the US Departmentof Energy.

v.

The Institute is liaising with project developers and reviewing
proposed CCS facilities with an eye to including them in our
CO2RE database in early 2020.

vi.

Note that the cost of capture from more concentrated CO2
gas streams, such as biofuel production or hydrogen production
from gas or coal, are significantly lower.

vii.

GCCSI Analysis based on 8 per cent discount rate, 30 years
project life, 2.5 years construction time, capacity factor of
85 per cent. Fuel prices were based on the reported data inthe project feasibility and FEED reports. Cost data normalised
to 2017 values.

139. Source data for Figure 29:
NETL (2018), Compendium of Carbon Capture Technology
2018, accessed from <https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/
files/netl-file/Carbon-Capture-Technology-Compendium-2018.
pdf>.
Global CCS Institute (2019a), ‘CO2RE Database, Facilities
Report’, accessed from <https://CO2RE.co/FacilityData>.
140. Feron, P, Cousins, A, Jiang, K, Zhai, R, Shwe Hla, S,
Thiruvenkatachari, R & Burnard, K (2019), ‘Towards Zero
Emissions from Fossil Fuel Power Stations’, International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 87, pp. 188–202,
accessed from <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S1750583618308934>.
141. International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme(2019), Towards Zero Emissions CCS from Power Stations using
Higher Capture Rates or Biomass 2019-02.
142. Source data for Figure 30:
International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme(2019) Towards Zero Emissions CCS from Power Stations using
Higher Capture Rates or Biomass 2019-02.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), Climate
Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group
III Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, accessed from<https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-change2014-mitigation-of-climate-change/81F2F8D8D234727D153
EC10D428A2E6D>.

6.0 APPENDICES
6.3 HYDROGEN STRATEGIES WITH CCS
143. International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme(2019), The Future of Hydrogen, Seizing today’s opportunities,
International Energy Agency, Paris, available at < https://
www.International Energy Agency.org/hydrogen2019/>.
144. Kosturjak, A., Dey, T., Young, M.D., Whetton, S. (2019),
Advancing Hydrogen: Learning from 19 plans to advancehydrogen from across the globe, Future Fuels CRC, accessedfrom <https://www.futurefuelscrc.com/blog/2019/07/newreport-shows-global-hydrogen-focus>.
145. Kosturjak, A., Dey, T., Young, M.D., Whetton, S. (2019),
Advancing Hydrogen: Learning from 19 plans to advancehydrogen from across the globe, Future Fuels CRC, accessedfrom <https://www.futurefuelscrc.com/blog/2019/07/newreport-shows-global-hydrogen-focus>.
146. Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (2019), Hydrogen
Roadmap Europe: A sustainable pathway for the European
Energy Transition, Available at <https://www.fch.europa.eu>.
147. Gigler, J. and Weeda, M. (2018), Outlines of a Hydrogen
Roadmap, TKI Nieuw Gas Top Sector Energy (2018),
available at <https://www.topsectorenergie.nl/>

83

viii. Assuming 50kWh of electricity per kilogram ofhydrogen produced.
ix.

Conversion from AUD to USD as of 26 November 2019.

x.

Estimated electricity generated in 2017 from Nuclear was
2637TWh, from all renewables combined was 6351TWh.

xi.

See p.71 for more detailed information about coal fired
generators with CCS – Boundary Dam and Petra Nova.

xii.

Global CCS Institute analysis of public and GCCSI exclusive
project feasibility and FEED reports, NETL 2018 Compendiumof Carbon Capture Technology and presentations from NETL
2019 Carbon Capture, Utilization, Storage and Oil and Gas
Technologies Integrated Review Meeting.

xiii. Cost is adjusted to 2018 US$ value calculated using themeasure of cost used by (Rubin et al 2015). Cost of flue gas
desulfurization process is included in Boundary Dam and Shand.

Find out more
The Global CCS Institute provides knowledge, data, networking andadvocacy services to its members and offers a comprehensive rangeof consultancy services related to CCS.
Any Questions
Contact a member of the Advocacy and Communications Team
globalccsinstitute.com/contact
Head office
Level 16, 360 Elizabeth Street,
Melbourne VIC 3000
Australia
P +61 (0)3 8620 7300
©Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd 2019
Unless stated otherwise, copyright to this publication is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License.
The Global CCS Institute has tried to make information in this publication as
accurate as possible. However, it does not guarantee that the information in thispublication is totally reliable, accurate or complete. Therefore, the informationin this publication should not be relied upon solely when making investment orcommercial decisions.
The Global CCS Institute has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracyof URLs to any external or third party internet websites referred to in thispublication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, orwill remain, accurate or appropriate. To the maximum extent permitted, theGlobal CCS Institute, its employees and advisers accept no liability (including
for negligence) for any use or reliance on the information in this publication,
including any commercial or investment decisions made on the basis of
information provided in this publication.
Please use the following to reference the report:
Global CCS Institute, 2019. The Global Status of CCS: 2019. Australia.
The information in this report is current as of November 2019.

85