CO2 Capture Project: Initial Results (2004)

CO2 Capture Project: Initial Results Iain W. Wright; Iain W. Wright BP Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Arthur Lee; Arthur Lee ChevronTexaco Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Peter Middleton; Peter Middleton BP Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Cliff Lowe; Cliff Lowe ChevronTexaco Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Scott W. Imbus; Scott W. Imbus ChevronTexaco Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Ivano Miracca Ivano Miracca Eni Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. Paper Number: SPE-86602-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/86602-MS Published: March 29 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Wright, Iain W., Lee, Arthur, Middleton, Peter, Lowe, Cliff, Imbus, Scott W., and Ivano Miracca. "CO2 Capture Project: Initial Results." Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/86602-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability Search Advanced Search IntroductionCO2 capture and geological storage could provide a significant GreenHouse Gas (GHG) mitigation option if the cost of capture can be reduced and the public can be assurethat geological storage is safe, measureable and verifiable.The CO2 Capture Project (CCP) is a public/private partnership initiated in 2000 to address the two issues above. Industry participants are BP, ChevronTexaco, EnCana, Eni, Norsk Hydro, Shell, Statoil and Suncor. Government funding was provided by USA, EU and Norway. Project funding was $50mm over three years (including cash and in-kind contributions). CCP objectives were to:Develop low cost next generation technology, which achieves the ability to capture and geologically sequester from industrial turbines, boilers, heaters, and power generation systems, which emit CO2.Determine the key principles and practices to maximize the volume of CO2, which can be safely sequestered in geologic formations.Develop procedures and guidelines to monitor and verify storage of CO2 in geologic formations.Identify and recommend policies and incentives, which may enhance economic viability of CO2 capture and sequestration schemes.The project timeline is shown in Figure 1.The project organization chart is shown in Figure 2.Capture CostsThe specific objectives for the capture teams were:Develop new technologies, which would reduce the cost of capture by:50% for retro-fit applications and75% for new-build applicationsProgress those technologies to "proof of concept" stage by the end of 2003Benchmark that improvement against four real-life scenarios.The capture technologies were broken into three types:Post-CombustionPre-Combustion De-Carbonization (hydrogen)OxyfuelA process flow diagram (Figure 3) illustrates each capture technology.The four real-life scenarios chosen were:Distributed Gas Turbines in Alaska, USA.A Refinery in the UK, Europe.A Power Station in NorwayPetroleum Coke Gasification in CanadaThe first two scenarios exist today; the third and fourth would be new-build. These are described in more detail in Figure 4.For each scenario, the uncontrolled emissions were established and a CO2 capture plant was designed, engineered and costed on a consistent basis, using the current Best Available Technology (BAT). In the case of the first three scenarios, BAT was assumed to be the Fluor Econamine FGSM process and in the case of the petroleum coke gasification, BAT was assumed to be Selexol. This exercise also established (for BAT), the volume of CO2 captured and the volume of CO2 avoided (which takes account of secondary emissions from the capture plant). Obviously, the goal of the project is to minimize the cost of avoiding CO2 emissions.To facilitate like-for-like comparison, CO2 avoidance costs for the full-scale facilities were estimated assuming common location factors (US Gulf Coast) as well as location-specific costs. Costs are expressed in absolute terms as well as unitary (US$ per tonne CO2 avoided) and incremental electricity cost (US$/KWhr). Keywords: society of petroleum engineers, gas turbine, climate change, upstream oil & gas, structural geology, spe 86602, boiler, co 2, co2 capture, combustion Subjects: Unconventional Production Facilities, Reservoir Characterization, Environment, CO2 capture and management, Exploration, development, structural geology, Climate change This content is only available via PDF. 2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.