NOTE: Some content may not display correctly, including tables and figures. See PDF for full details.

 ASEAN CCS Strategic Considerations

© Global CCS Institute, 2014 [email protected]

© ASEAN Centre for Energy, 2014 [email protected]

CONTENTS

FOREWORD          2

WhAT IS CCS?          3

Why does the ASEAN region need CCS?          3

ASEAN’S lONG-TERm ENERGy pATh           4

Energy and sustainable development          4

ASEAN Long-term energy path          4

Current and long-term CO  emission path          5

Climate Change Considerations          6

CCS CONTRIbuTION TO EmISSION REDuCTIONS IN ASEAN          7

CCS ACTIvITIES IN ASEAN          8

Cambodia          8

Indonesia          8

Lao PDR          9

Malaysia          10

Myanmar          10

Philippines          11

Thailand          11

Viet Nam          12

OvERvIEW OF CCS READINESS          13

CCS already contributing to emissions abatement          14

COST OF CCS          15

CO2  CApTuRE TEChNOlOGIES           17

Pre-Combustion          17

Post Combustion          19

Oxyfuel          20

CO  TRANSpORT          22

Risks and environmental impacts          23

Transport Networks          23

Regional Considerations          25

CO  uTIlISATION          25

CO  STORAGE          26

Site selection          27

Monitoring, measurement and verification          28

Risks and environmental impacts          29

lEGAl AND REGulATORy FRAmEWORk DEvElOpmENTS           30

Dedicated CCS Legislation          31

Regional Considerations          32

Approach to development          34

publIC ENGAGEmENT          35

Understanding local communities – social site characterisation          35

Trends in social research          36

SuppORTING mEChANISmS          38

INTERNATIONAl SuppORT mEChANISmS FOR DEvElOpING COuNTRIES           38

Dedicated CCS financial contributions          38

Carbon Credits          40

UNFCCC Green Climate Fund          40

STRATEGIC ISSuES AND NExT STEpS          40

Strategic Issues          40

Next Steps          42

REFERENCES          45

AppENDIx I: lARGE-SCAlE pROjECTS IN ThE OpERATE AND CONSTRuCTION STAGE           46

AppENDIx II: ExISTING AND EmERGING uSES OF CO2          47

AppENDIx III: IlluSTRATIvE ROAD mAp FOR CARbON CApTuRE AND STORAGE DEplOymENT          49

FOREWORD

Reducing the worlds greenhouse gas emissions, while delivering energy and growth, is a challenge to be met by a portfolio of clean energy technologies. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can play an important role in reducing emissions, alongside renewables and energy efficiency. The costs of reducing emissions and addressing climate change are likely to be substantially higher if CCS is excluded.

This CCS Strategic Considerations Paper has been prepared by the Global CCS Institute and the ASEAN Centre for Energy to facilitate a discussion on CCS by ASEAN policymakers. The ASEAN forum is particularly well suited to discuss regional considerations.

The paper provides a high-level overview of some of the key matters related to CCS, including: global status of CCS, costs, capture technology, storage, legal and regulatory developments and public engagement. Useful references are provided for those looking for more detail on a particular topic.

The paper also provides an overview of CCS in the ASEAN region, and suggests next steps to assist in creating the right conditions for the deployment of CCS in the region in the future.

The Global CCS Institute looks forward to continuing our collaboration with the ASEAN Centre for Energy and facilitating knowledge sharing on CCS.

Clare penrose

General manager – Asia pacific, Global CCS Institute

Sustainable energy development that supports regional economic growth is required to achieve optimal sustainable development for Southeast Asia. With the launch of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015, the region’s energy requirements are expected to increase with resulting economic expansion and integration. According to the 3rd ASEAN Energy Outlook under a business-as usual scenario, the region’s primary energy consumption will grow at 4.5% per annum from 2007 to 2030, resulting in a corresponding 5.7% growth in CO emissions. This is largely due to the escalation of carbon-intensive fossil fuels such as coal, as well as oil and natural gas consumption.

This increasing primary energy consumption and corresponding increase in CO emissions needs to be curbed. It requires an increasing role for low-carbon and zero-carbon energy technologies to be embedded in the long-term national energy programs. 

CCS deployment in the ASEAN region offers great potential for reducing CO emissions from large point source emitters, such as coal-fired power plants, coal gasification and liquefaction plants, and oil and gas processing plants, to achieve low carbon development path in ASEAN energy sectors.

The preparation of this report, ASEAN CCS Strategic Considerations, is the result of a directive to the ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE) by the Senior Officials Meeting on Energy (SOME) and ASEAN Ministers of Energy Meeting (AMEM). The Meeting agreed that the ACE, in coordination with the ASEAN Forum on Coal (AFOC), will work with the Global CCS Institute (the Institute) to develop a strategic paper on ASEAN CCS Strategic Considerations.

As a result, the Institute and ACE jointly prepared this document with the objective to facilitate high policy level dialogues and discussions for CCS development & deployment in the ASEAN region at the levels of SOME and AMEM. Importantly, the document rationalises the need for CCS in the ASEAN region, describes ASEAN’s long-term energy path, quantifies the CCS contribution to emission reductions in ASEAN. It also provides insights into the status of CCS activities in the ASEAN Member States. Substantially, the paper provides a high-level overview of some of the key associated issues from up-stream to down-stream such as cost of CCS, capture technologies, CO transport, risks and environmental impacts, CO utilization, storage issues, regulatory frameworks, as well as legal public engagement and supporting mechanisms including global CCS status. The strategic issues and next steps are clearly described and elaborated in this report.

ACE hopes that this strategic paper will bring new insights, stimulate useful and productive discussions and to pave the way towards a unified action to develop and to deploy CCS in the ASEAN region for a low-carbon development path to achieving a sustainable energy system.

Dr. hardiv harris Situmeang Executive Director

ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE)

What IS CCS?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS), sometimes called carbon capture and sequestration, prevents large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO ) from being released into the atmosphere. The technology involves capturing CO produced by large industrial and power plants, compressing it for transportation and then injecting it deep into a rock formation at a carefully selected and safe site, where it is permanently stored.

Figure 1: Carbon capture and storage

Because CCS can achieve significant CO emission reductions, it is considered a key option within the portfolio of approaches

required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. CCS technology involves three major steps:

1. Capture: The separation of CO from other gases produced at large industrial process facilities such as coal and natural gas power plants, oil and gas plants, steel mills and cement plants.

2. Transport: Once separated, the CO is compressed and transported via pipelines, trucks, ships or other methods to a suitable site for geological storage.

3. Storage: CO is injected into deep underground rock formations, at depths of one kilometre or more.

Why does the ASEAN region need CCS?

The world depends on energy, for which we rely predominantly on fossil fuels. Forecasts of global energy demand growth indicate that this reliance will grow for many decades to come with developing countries, many within the ASEAN region, consuming energy at increasing rates as their economies industrialise and standards of living continue to improve.

To avoid dangerous climate change, more than 100 countries have endorsed a goal for deep cuts in global emissions to hold the global average temperature rise at 2oC relative to pre-industrial times. To achieve this, we are dependent on a significant scale of CO mitigation that could see CCS contribute between 15 and 55% of the required abatement to the year 2100 (IPCC, 2005). 

Electricity sourced from fossil fuels accounts for more than 40% of the world’s energy-related CO emissions (IEA, 2011). Another 25% of emissions come from large-scale industrial processes such as iron and steel production, cement making, natural gas processing and petroleum refining. Demand for fossil fuels is increasing, especially in developing countries, where a significant percentage of the population has no access to electricity.

CCS is a viable option for reducing emissions from such large-scale sources. It has the potential to help reduce to almost zero the emissions released into the atmosphere from power plants and industrial plants.

CCS poses no greater environmental or safety risks than many aspects of the existing hydrocarbon industry; for instance natural gas storage in geological formations. However, the risks are not exactly the same, and they do have to be managed.

ASEAN’S long Term Energy path

Energy and sustainable development

The size and composition of the energy sector in ASEAN requires a carefully planned energy path to support sustainable development while at the same time meeting ASEAN’s energy needs. Managing the energy system while ensuring sustainable development is one of the key roles of government. The energy sector plays a central role in supporting a country’s social and economic development by maintaining a stable national energy supply. Other priorities include energy security and energy independence by utilising domestic energy sources and managing national reserves. To achieve a low-carbon development path in the energy sector, ASEAN countries are pursuing: expanding reliable energy infrastructure; decreasing dependence on fossil fuels (still the major source of energy in the region); promoting energy efficiency; promoting utilisation of renewable energy; and enhancing diffusion of low-carbon and zero-carbon energy technologies.

The preferred long-term national energy plan must be able to address the main challenges facing the energy sector in achieving sustainable development. Action is required to steer the national energy system towards a sustainable energy path while supporting national economic growth. The dual objectives of national energy security and reducing CO emissions must be met. An integrated and optimal energy mix can be implemented using environmentally friendly technology. Due to emission constraints, fossil fuels cannot contiune to meet all of ASEAN’s future energy needs, therefore technology improvements and knowledge transfer in the energy sector have become very important.

The energy technology development and deployment program needs to be based on consideration of geographic location, population growth, economic growth, living standards and patterns, environmental impact of technologies, and the endowment of energy resources. These key elements will influence the implemenation of national long-term energy plans. On the demand side, ‘social readiness’ will influence the willingness of consumers to reduce CO intensive energy consumption to address climate change. Developing this ‘social readiness’ to encourage consumers to change their pattern of energy consumption should be considered in every step of energy policy design.

ASEAN Long-term energy path

ASEAN is one of the fastest growing economic regions in the world, driven by a growing middle class, urbanisation and industrialisation, as well as economic integration of its ten member countries. This growth had a consequential increase in primary energy consumption which was calculated at 3.6% per annum from 1995 to 2007. Total primary energy consumption increased from 339 MTOE (million tonnes of oil equivalent) in 1995 to 511 MTOE in 2007, in which fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) accounted for 64.6% in 1995 and increased to 72.4% in 2007.

Among the fossil fuels consumed in the region, coal had the fastest growth rate, increasing at an annual rate of 13.0%, mostly due to the installation of coal-fired power plants in the region. Natural gas had the second fastest growth at 6.5% per annum increasing its share from 16.4% in 1995 to 21.4% in 2007. Oil remains the major energy source in the ASEAN economies but its growth was relatively slower than other sources of energy at 2.2% per annum. As a result, its share in the primary energy mix decreased from 43.6% in 1995 to 36.2% in 2007. Renewable fuels, such as geothermal and hydropower, also grew in the same period, however their share remains low. The primary energy mix composition is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: ASEAN Primary Energy Mix, 1995 and 2007

A similar pattern can be seen in the electricity generation mix. The individual shares of coal, oil and natural gas in the ASEAN has changed substantially from 1995 to 2007; coal increased from 13.4% to 27.3%, oil decreased from 31.4% to 10.6% while the gas increased from 36.7% to 45.9%. The total share of fossil fuels increased from 81.4% in 1995 to 83.8% in 2007.

This fossil fuel growth is expected to continue into the future. As described in the 3rd ASEAN Energy Outlook (ACE, 2011), the current trend of the energy path will stay the same, where fossil fuels are expected to remain the dominant source of energy and the biggest share in region’s energy mix. Until 2030, it is expected that fossil fuels remain the major energy driver to fulfill regional energy demand growth.

Under a Business-as-Usual (BaU) Scenario, with an assumed GDP growth rate of 5.2% per annum from 2007 to 2030, the primary energy consumption is expected to grow at 4.5% per annum on average, to reach 1,414 MTOE in 2030. Hydropower is expected to grow at 7.1% per annum as countries in the Greater Mekong Sub-region develop their vast hydropower potential for electricity trade with their neighbours, nuclear power is expected to be introduced, and the region continues to promote renewable energy. Nevertheless, the share of fossil fuels is still growing, and anticipated to reach 80.4% in 2030.

Under an Alternative Policy Scenario (APS), the growth of primary energy consumption will be slower at 3.6% per annum, representing 1,152 MTOE in 2030. This is the result of implementing energy efficiency, conservation action plans and saving targets of member countries. However even under the APS, the share of fossil fuels remains higher than the year 2007 level, at 77.3% in 2030. The energy mix for both scenarios can be seen in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: ASEAN Primary Energy Mix 2030, BaU and APS

Current and long-term CO emission path

As ASEAN continues to pursue its economic and development goals by being heavily dependent on fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), CO emissions will consequently continue to grow if low-carbon technologies are not utilised. As depicted by Figure 4, CO emissions from the energy sector in 2007 was 283 Mt-CO e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent). The Outlook (ACE, 2011) projected that the 4.5% annual growth in primary energy consumption under the BaU scenario will result in a corresponding 5.7% growth in CO emissions. This is due largely to the escalation of coal consumption which is the most carbon- intensive fossil fuel, along with oil and natural gas consumption. This increasing energy consumption will have a corresponding increase in CO emissions contributing to global warming. To counter this trend, the introduction of large scale, low-carbon energy technologies is required to be embedded into long-term national energy programs.

The implementation of the APS for reduction of associated greenhouse gas emissions is expected to slow the CO  emissions annual growth rate to 4.4%. This is the result of implementing the energy efficiency and conservation (EE&C) action plans, reduction in fuel consumption from end-users and power generation, as well as the deployment of low-carbon and zero-carbon energy technologies.

Total CO emission in the APS is estimated to be about 679 Mt-CO e, 24% lower than the BaU scenario (895 Mt-CO e).

2                                 2                                 2

Figure 4: CO Emission in the Reference and Alternative Scenarios, in Mt-C

Under the BaU growth rate, emissions are expected to continue to rise along with population growth and increases in standards of living – factors that drive the demand for energy. CO emissions per unit of energy consumption would therefore increase from 0.49 t-CO e (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2007 to 0.63 t-CO e in 2030 under the BaU scenario, and 0.59 t-CO e under the APS. CO emissions per unit of GDP would also increase at the average annual rate of 0.5% from 283 t-CO e/million USD in 2007 to 317 t-CO e/million USD in 2030 in BaU. In APS, on the other hand, CO 0.7% per year to 240 t-CO e/million USD.

intensity is expected to decrease by 

In line with the above trend, it’s required that the ASEAN long-term CO emissions path needs to be curbed. This requires an increased role for low-carbon and zero-carbon energy technologies to be embedded in the long-term national energy programs in order to achieve low carbon development path in the ASEAN energy sectors. With its ability to reduce emissions up to 90% from large point source emitters - such as coal fired power plants, coal gasification and liquefaction plants, and oil and gas processing plants – CCS is an important low-carbon technology.

Climate Change Considerations

ASEAN’S  REGIONAl  RESPONSE  TO  CLIMATE  ChANGE

With the projected continued dominance of fossil fuels, ASEAN may become one of the big contributors to global warming. At the same time, ASEAN is also at risk from the impacts of climate change with lesser ability and capacity to cope with its effects, compared to other regions. Some governments, already faced with financial constraints, will be confronted with additional costs associated with climate change mitigation and adaptation in the future.

Acknowledging this situation, the 25th and 26th ASEAN Ministers of Energy Meeting (AMEM) held in November 2007 in Singapore and in August 2008 in Bangkok, Thailand, respectively, provided the guidelines and directives towards, among other things: enhance regional cooperation on energy; to further intensify cooperation in the area of energy efficiency and conservation; and to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Through the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) 2010-2015 adopted at the 27th AMEM in Mandalay, Myanmar on 29 July 2009, ASEAN recognised global and regional issues and challenges on energy and climate change. Furthermore, energy and climate change was the theme of the 28th AMEM in Da Lat, Viet Nam on 22 July, 2010. The Ministers noted the Leaders’ vision for an ASEAN Community resilient to climate change, as set out in the 2009 ASEAN Leaders’ Statement on Joint Response to Climate Change. In this respect, the Ministers re-affirmed their commitment towards strengthening efforts to address climate change and enhancing ASEAN energy cooperation towards a low-carbon, green economy. This is in line with the overall APAEC 2010-2015 goals to enhance energy security and sustainability for the ASEAN region including health, safety and environment through accelerated implementation of the action plans.

EMISSION GOALS

Despite ASEAN not yet setting a specific target for CO emission reductions, energy efficiency is seen as one of the most cost effective ways to enhance energy security and address climate change in the region. The ASEAN Energy Ministers agreed to pursue the aspirational goal of reducing regional energy intensity of at least 8% by 2015 based on 2005 levels, as stipulated in the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) 2010-2015, Program Area No. 4 Energy Efficiency and Conservation.

On a more technical level, through APAEC 2010-2015, ASEAN also set collective actions to strengthen cooperative partnerships in the promotion and utilisation of coal and clean coal technologies among the Member States. In supporting this plan, it is the view of ASEAN that the ASEAN long-term CO emissions path needs to be curbed which requires an increased role for low-carbon and zero-carbon energy technologies. The implementation of these low-carbon technolgoies needs to be embedded in the long-term national energy programs in order to achieve a low carbon development path in ASEAN energy sectors.

The widespread use of existing energy-efficient technologies and the development and deployment of new low-carbon and zero-carbon energy technologies will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally in order to stabilize GHG atmospheric concentrations at a safe level, and contribute to a coherent global mitigation effort. It is of critical importance to achieve this target without sacrificing economic progress, and balance the cost of GHG emissions mitigation and its supporting policies.

It is important that the full range of technological options should be eligible for abating climate change. A suite of policies and regulations should establish performance criteria including environmental criteria for suitable energy technologies while also encouraging further research and innovation.

CCS Contribution to Emission Reductions in ASEAN

Figure 5: Portfolio of technologies needed to achieve emission reduction targets in ASEAN

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has modelled the lowest cost pathway to achieving the required emissions reductions to cap temperature rise at 2oC relative to pre-industrial times. The IEA have undertaken this modelling on a global, regional, and in some cases country level.

The IEA estimates that CCS could contribute 14% of global emission reductions out to 2050. If CCS were to be excluded as a low-emission technology option in the electricity sector, the IEA estimates that the investment costs over the period to 2050 – to reach the same CO abatement – could increase by 40%, or approximately US$2 trillion. The costs of reducing emissions and addressing climate change are likely to be substantially higher if CCS is excluded.

The diagram above illustrates the portfolio of technologies required to achieve the necessary emissions reductions in ASEAN. It can be seen that CCS is a vital component of the ASEAN-specific portfolio, also contributing an estimated 14% cumulatively, i.e. from 2009 to 2050.

CCS Activities in ASEAN

This section provides a brief snapshot of CCS activities in ASEAN Member States.

Cambodia

Cambodia is participating in The Coordinating Committee for Geoscience Programmes in East and Southeast Asia (CCOP) regional storage program. With support from the Global CCS Institute and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, CCOP is developing a cross-border mapping program to characterise storage reservoirs within the Southeast Asia region. The project is designed to support existing CO geological storage activities and kick-start implementation of storage mapping in member countries without an existing program. The mapping program aims to provide a forum for knowledge sharing among the member countries and develop a guideline for national CO storage mapping along with a CCOP CO

Storage Atlas.

useful  references

More information on the CCOP storage program can be found on the CCOP website: http://www.ccop.or.th/ccsm/ 

Indonesia

Indonesia was the first of the ASEAN Member States to commence comprehensively investigating the potential for CCS, and is arguably the most advanced. An Indonesian CCS Working Group produced a report in 2009 called Understanding Carbon Capture and Storage Potential in Indonesia. This Working Group comprised of LEMIGAS, British Embassy Jakarta, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup, Shell Interantional, PT PLN (PERSERO) and the World Energy Council (Komite Nasional Indonesia). The study found that the two regions with the most potential for CCS linked to enhanced oil recovery were in East Kalimantan and South Sumatra.

CCS  proSpeCtS  in  South  Sumatra

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has more recently published a report called Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in Southeast Asia, which explores the prospects for CCS in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam (and was supported by the Global CCS Institute). The study identifies major CO sources and sinks within these countries. The study focused on significant sources of emissions in the South Sumatra region for Indonesia. The study identified five significant sources of CO emissions in this region, including a natural gas processing facility, a power plant, a cement plant, a fertiliser plant and a petroleum refinery.

The report found there were a number of natural gas processing facilities that would also represent significant sources of CO in the region; although data was not available for these plants so they were not further investigated as part of the study. Although natural gas processing plants emit lower quantities of CO than the other identified sources, the high purity of CO flows resulting from the separation process already undertaken make natural gas potentially more economically viable for CCS. The five sources of emissions that were assessed had a total of approximately 8 million tonnes (Mt) per annum (pa), with the fertiliser plant the single largest contributor.

The study ranked the emission sources using a two-step process. The first step identified emission sources that had “(i) remaining operating life of at least 20 years, and (ii) plants must have limited operational variability (i.e. exceed an 80% operating factor) so that a steady stream of CO  is produced.”  (ADB, 2013, p19) The second step ranked the emission sources against 11 preferential criteria. Based on this ranking process, the sources that emerged as well placed for a pilot or demonstration project in South Sumatra were:

1. a natural gas processing plant, which produces 0.15 Mt CO pa a sub-critical pulverized coal power plant which produces1.8 Mt COpa 

2.a fertilizer (urea) plant which produces 2.7 MT CO pa. However currently all of this CO is consumed for the production of urea; but with a possible switch from natural gas to coal as the fuel source, this may produce more CO for sequestration.

Storage CapaCity

The study also looked at potential storage capacity, in different geologic storage ‘containers’. The study estimated CO capacity in the South Sumatra region to be:

ƒƒSaline aquifers – theoretical capacity 7.7 giga-tonnes

ƒƒOil fields – effective capacity of 0.1 giga-tonnes

ƒƒGas fields – effective capacity 0.8 giga-tonnes

ƒƒCoal bed methane – theoretical capacity of 2.7 giga-tonnes.

storage

This indicates that, theoretically at least, there is enough storage capacity to store the CO emissions from the identified significant sources in the region. Other regions of Indonesia might present further storage opportunities. It is also important to note that only 59% of all existing oil fields and 47% of all gas resources in the South Sumatra basin were evaluated, due to the availability of information. This means that the effective capacity of storage in the oil and gas fields would likely be higher than the statistics noted above.

It can be seen from the figures above, that the greatest storage capacity exists in saline aquifers. However, storage in depleted oil and gas fields, and storage linked to enhanced oil recovery, represent more cost effective options in the shorter term. Depleted oil and gas fields also have the most storage data available for assessment.

Of the 85 oil and gas fields assessed in the South Sumatra region, 44 were judged to have ‘medium’ suitability for storage. The top three or four highest ranking fields are oil fields that could provide 28 Mt CO of storage.

FirSt-mover  proJeCt  optionS

The study authors used their analysis of CO sources and storage options - known as ‘sinks’ - to identify suitable pilot scale projects that could be scaled-up to commercial-scale projects in time. They found the gas processing plant is well located in relation to storage for a pilot scale project, but would have to be combined with another source of CO making this an option.

for a commercial-scale project. Fortunately, there are other CO sources within a 150 km radius, The coal fired power plant emerges as the best source for a commercial scale source of CO located near the oil reservoirs in the south and central South Sumatera Basin. There are attractive CO -EOR opportunities in Indonesia that could be utilised for pilot or commercial scale projects.

LegaL  and  reguLatory

A legal and regulatory analysis was undertaken as part of the study, to identify what aspects of Indonesia’s existing framework would be applicable to regulating CCS. A high-level overview is available in the summary report, and Indonesian government officials have access to the more detailed country-level report.

The ADB, Japan International Cooperation Agency and Pertamina are collaborating on a CCS Feasibility Study for a test injection plant in South Sumatra. This project fits within Indonesia’s Roadmap for CCS Pilot in Indonesia, 2012 – 2018. In addition, this project will review in more detail the legal and regulatory aspects required to undertake a CCS pilot project in Indonesia.

Indonesia is also participating in the CCOP regional storage programme, and is in fact one of the ‘case study’ countries.

useful  references

› Asian Development Bank, Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in Southeast Asia, http://www.adb.org/publications/prospects-carbon-capture-and-storage-southeast-asia

› Indonesia CCS Study Working Group, Understanding Carbon Capture and Storage Potential in Indonesia, http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/system/files/ccspotentialindonesia.pdf

Lao PDR

Lao PDR is also participating in the CCOP regional storage programme.

Malaysia

Following the completion of a Malaysian CCS Study, the Global CCS Institute has implemented a tailored CCS capacity development program in partnership with the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (KeTTHA) and other Malaysian stakeholders. This program has included the introduction of a CCS course into key Malaysian Universities and preliminary legal and regulatory analysis. The legal and regulatory analysis builds on the analysis of the Malaysian legal and regulatory framework undertaken as part of the APEC study on Permitting Issues Related to Carbon Capture and Storage for Coal-Based Power Plant Projects in Developing APEC Economies.

The University of PETRONAS (UTP) has established the Research Centre for Carbon Dioxide Capture, part of the university’s nine mission-oriented research areas, this one focused on CO management. This research complements UTP’s parent company, PETRONAS’, CO mitigation plan which includes CCS in the future.

maLaySian CCS SCoping Study

The Malaysian CCS Scoping Study was completed in January 2011 and concluded that “Malaysia is well positioned to develop a strategy that includes CCS in its future energy supply and infrastructure, and there is a strong rationale for doing so.” (CCI, 2011)

Given Malaysia’s active oil and gas industry, and high CO content gas fields, it is likely that suitable storage would be available, particularly offshore. Onshore storage may also be a possibility; however there has been no geologic storage analysis for onshore. The Scoping Study identifies some ‘source-sink’ clusters that have good potential in Malaysia. These include:

ƒƒcluster of point sources in eastern Peninsular Malaysia near Kerteh, which can access potential storage areas in the offshore Malay and Penyu Basins, and are connected via the Peninsular Gas Utilisation network ƒƒcluster of point sources in Sarawak near Bintulu, which can access potential storage areas in the offshore Greater Sarawak, and are being connected via the Sabah-Sarawak Gas Pipeline under construction by PETRONAS ƒƒcluster of point sources in northern Peninsular Malaysia near Kedah, which can access potential areas in the offshore Thailand-Malaysia Joint Development Area, and are connected via the Trans Thailand Malaysia pipeline ƒƒcluster of point sources on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia near Kuala Lumpur and Port Dickson which can access potential storage areas in the Penyu Basin or, assuming the resolution of trans-boundary transportation and storage issues, in basins located in neighbouring countries ƒƒcluster of point sources in southern Peninsular Malaysia near Johor, which can access potential storage areas in the Penyu Basin or, assuming the resolution of trans-boundary transportation and storage issues, in basins located in neighbouring countries. (CCI, 2011, p25)

The Kerteh area has 21 facilities with large CO emissions, totalling approximately 40 MT pa, and the Bintulu area has 9 large CO emission facilities totalling more than 15.1 MT pa. With high-potential storage areas nearby, these two clusters may be particularly promising. (CCI, 2011)

useful  references

› Clinton Climate Initiative, Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water, Global CCS Institute, Malaysia CCS Scoping Study, January 2011 - available to Malaysian Government officials

› Hart, C., Tomski, P., Coddington, K., Permitting Issues Related to Carbon Capture and Storage for Coal-Based Power Plant Projects in Developing APEC Economies  http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1322

› Global CCS Institute, Malaysian CCS legal and regulatory workshop report, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/ publications/malaysian-ccs-legal-and-regulatory-workshop-report

Myanmar

It has been reported that a 600MW power plant being planned for the Dawei Special Economic Zone in Myanmar, is intending to utilise Japanese CCS technology as part of its environment management. (SNL, 2013) If this goes ahead, Myanmar could emerge as the ASEAN CCS front-runner.

Philippines

The potential for CCS in the Philippines was examined as part of the ADB’s study on Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in Southeast Asia. The Philippines is also a participating country in the CCOP regional storage programme.

CCS  proSpeCtS  in  CaLaBarZon

The ADB study focused on the CALABARZON region in the Philippines, which is the acronym for the five provinces in the immediate vicinity of the National Capital Region or Metro Manila – CAvite, LAguna, BAtangas, Rizal and QueZON.

The total emissions in the Philippines in 2009 are estimated to be 69 Mt CO e. The CALABARZON region in the Philippines has emissions of approximately 18 MT CO pa, which includes three coal fired power plants, three gas-fired power plants, three cement plants and an oil refinery. The top CO sources identified as part of the study were:

ƒƒa sub-critical pulverized coal power plant which produces 3.1 Mt CO2 pa in Mauban, Quezon

ƒƒa natural gas combined cycle power plant, which produces 3.1 Mt CO2 pa in Batangas

ƒƒa natural gas combined cycle power plant, which produces 2.8 Mt CO2 pa also in Batangas.

However, the ADB’s two-step ranking process of CO  sources outlined in the ‘Indonesia’ section above also included   an examination of future capture sources from coal and gas fired power plants for the Philippines. This ranking revealed only one future natural gas plant with estimated CO emission of 1.5MT pa that met the conditions to be considered a candidate for capture by 2020.

Storage CapaCity

The storage estimates for the Philippines were based on only two sedimentary basins (Cagayan and Central Luzon Basin) representing one eighth of the possibilities that exist in the country. For these basins, the study estimates storage capacity to be:

ƒƒSaline aquifers – theoretical capacity 22.7 giga tonnes. This could theoretically hold all the emissions from Calabarzon for more than 100 years.

ƒƒGas fields – effective capacity 0.3 giga tonnes.

FirSt-mover  proJeCt  optionS

The study found that the best source-sink combination for a pilot/demonstration plant in the Philippines links the CO sources in the CALBARZON region with the storage potential in the currently producing offshore gas fields. This scenario assumes that a 504 km natural gas pipeline could be utilised for CO the production of gas will cease before 2030.

transport, once the gas field stops producing. However, it is unlikely that The Central Luzon Basin – a saline aquifer – is located within a viable distance from the large sources of CO in CALBARZON.

However, the Central Luzon Basin has more seismic activity than the Northwest Palawan Basin, which is further away from the CO sources, but is nevertheless a possible storage option (and was not analysed as part of the study).

Given the Philippines has limited ‘near-term’ opportunities for storage in their oil and gas fields, other potential storage options include geothermal, ophiolites and coal seams. For instance, “there are three geothermal areas within 150 km of CALABARZON which warrant further consideration as potential storage sites.” (ADB, 2013, p39)

LegaL  and  reguLatory 

Philippine Government officials have access to the more detail country-level study, which includes a legal and regulatory review. Like Indonesia, there are aspects of the Filipino legal and regulatory framework that are applicable to CCS (e.g. environmental protection requirements, occupational health and safety standards etc) but any CCS projects will require the consideration of CCS-specific issues, such as legal liability and CO pipeline transport.

Thailand

Thailand was also examined as part of the ADB’s study on Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in Southeast Asia, and is also a participating country in the CCOP regional storage programme. The Thai Ministry of Energy has established a CCS Taskforce and is working towards the development of CCS.

CCS  proSpeCtS  in  thaiLand The ADB study identified that Thailand’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 230 MT CO equivalent (eq) in 2000. The study surveyed “over 50 potential sources of CO across four sectors – power, cement, natural gas processing, and oil and gas production, which represented the best capture sources. Collectively, these sources produce approximately 108 Mt per year.” (ADB, 2013, p19) Of these sources, and using the two-step screening process, the study authors identified the top three CO capture candidates in Thailand:

ƒƒa natural gas processing plant that produces 2.0 Mt CO2 pa in central Thailand

ƒƒa natural gas processing plant that produces 0.9 Mt pa in south Thailand

ƒƒa super-critical coal (bituminous) power plant that produces 3.1 Mt pa in central Thailand.

Storage CapaCity

The study estimated CO storage capacity in Thailand to be:

ƒƒsaline aquifers – theoretical capacity 8.9 giga tonnes  ƒƒoil fields – effective capacity 0.1 giga tonnes ƒƒgas fields – effective capacity 1.3 giga tonnes. “Thailand’s top three oil and gas fields best suited for CO storage could store as much as 350 Mt CO . Two of these three fields are primarily producing gas… The highest ranked storage site is also Thailand’s largest single volume storage option in an oil and gas field. The site is estimated to be able to hold 240Mt CO …and could become available for storage by 2017.” (ADB, 2013, p33)

FirSt-mover  proJeCt  optionS

Thailand has a number of good opportunities for pilot scale projects that could transition to a commercial scale project. For instance, CO from the 2.0Mt pa natural gas processing plant in central Thailand could store CO in adjacently located gas fields one which has a storage capacity of 22 Mt CO and other with a storage capacity of 41 Mt CO . For emission sources located near the coast, there are a number of offshore sinks in the Gulf of Thailand. A cluster of power plants near Bangkok produces a large amount of CO which could be stored in offshore storage sites 200 km away; this distance makes it more suitable for commercial-scale project. The study recommends a demonstration project associated with enhanced oil recovery (EOR) as the most cost effective option, with both onshore and offshore fields available.

Viet Nam

Viet Nam was also investigated as part of the ADB study, and it is also a participating country in the CCOP storage programme.

In addition, PetroVietnam has undertaken the 1st phase of an in-house study on CO injection sites for EOR. Interestingly, a proposed CCS project in Viet Nam, White Tiger, kicked started the debate of CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in 2005. In 2011, CCS became an eligible mitigation technology under the CDM.

Future  proSpeCtS  For  CCS For Viet Nam, the ADB study examined future CO capture sources that are expected to come online from 2012 to 2016,

including 35 coal power plants, four gas power plants and several smaller steel and cement plants. This was because “none of the existing CO sources had favorable characteristics to contribute to pilot and commercial-scale CCS projects.” (ADB, 2013, p22) The potential emissions from these future capture sources are expected to be 325MT in 2025. Of these future plants, the study’s two-step selection process identified the top three ranked capture candidates to be:

ƒƒa natural gas combined-cycle plant expected to produce 2.2Mt CO2 pa located in Dong Nai Province

ƒƒa subcritical domestic coal power plant expected to produce 15.2 Mt CO2 pa located in Binh Thuan Province

ƒƒa subcritical domestic coal power plant, expected to be produce 4.0Mt CO2 pa located in Ha Tinh Province. 

The sub-critical power-stations have large CO streams and other characteristics which meant they were ranked as good capture candidates; however, they are not ideal for CCS given their low efficiency. It is expected that future gas-processing facilities, which will likely process higher CO content gas, will strip out the CO as part of normal operations to meet gas specifications. This will produce a high-volume, high-purity CO stream amenable to capture and storage more cost effectively (similar to the situation in Indonesia and Thailand).

Storage CapaCity

The storage assessment of the study focused only on saline aquifers for which data was available as part of the petroleum system. However, there may be other saline aquifer storage options available in Viet Nam that were not assessed. For this reason, the saline storage estimate will most likely be lower than what is actually available. Nevertheless, based on the assessment undertaken, the study estimates:

ƒƒSaline aquifers – theoretical capacity 10.4 giga tonnes

ƒƒOil fields – effective capacity 0.6 giga tonnes

ƒƒGas fields – effective capacity 07 giga tonnes

ƒƒCoal bed methane – theoretical capacity 0.5 giga tonnes.

Viet Nam has some of the best ranked oil and gas fields suitable for storage, and the best storage sites also offer good EOR potential in Viet Nam. “The largest single volume site has an estimated storage capacity of 357 Mt CO wells and could be immediately available for EOR.” (ADB, 2013, xxiii)

with 200 production

FirSt-mover  proJeCt  optionS

The storage in the northern part of the country is too small to be scaled up for a commercial-scale project. There are good storage opportunities in the southern part of the country, with a major CO ‘storage hub’ of eight offshore oil-bearing fields in the

Cuu Long Basin. This ‘storage hub’ is within a viable transport distance (of ~150 km) of three ‘emission hubs’. These emission hubs include the NGCC plant and the proposed supercritical and subcritical coal power plants. As noted above, the large gas- processing plants that may become available in the future may offer even better opportunities for capture.

Once coal-bed methane production becomes commercial in Viet Nam, this might also offer good storage opportunities.

Overview of CCS Readiness

As at October 2013, there are 65 large-scale integrated projects (LSIPs), either active or planned, around the world. To be counted as ‘integrated’ the project must have all three elements of the CCS chain – capture, transport and storage. Large scale means that the project is capturing:

ƒƒat least 800,000 tonnes of CO2 annually for a coal-based power plant, or

ƒƒat least 400,000 tonnes of CO2 annually for other emission-intensive industrial facilities (including natural gas-based power generation).

The map below illustrates where these projects are located.

Figure 6: Map of LSIPs

Of these 65 LSIPs, 12 are already operating, and a further 8 are under construction. A further 45 are in the Define, Evaluate, or Identify stages. The table in Appendix I summarises the 20 projects either operating or under construction. It can be seen from this table that most projects are associated with industry, where CO capture is already an inherent part of the process, thus making these projects economically viable at this stage of development.

It is important to note that this does not include the numerous smaller scale, often non-integrated, projects around the world. For instance, the Global CCS Institute is tracking 23 important smaller-scale projects in the Asia-Pacific region alone (projects located in Australia, Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan).

The component parts of carbon capture and storage have been in operation in various industries for decades. For instance, removal of high purity CO is an inherent part of the process in: chemical production, coal gasification, coal-to-liquids, ethanol plants, fertilizer production, hydrogen production, and synthetic natural gas. The oil and gas industry has been storing CO as part of the enhanced oil recovery (EOR) process for the last 50 years, and there are approximately 6,000 km of CO pipelines in North America alone.

The challenge for CCS is integrating all three elements of the technology into a unified project, and scaling up the technology to capture the large volumes of CO produced – especially at a power facility.

There are a number of well-known technical and non-technical challenges to CCS implementation, such as: cost, lack of legal and regulatory frameworks, addressing investor uncertainty, and public opposition. However, the successful demonstration of the technology at scale implies that the technical challenges can be overcome.

CCS already contributing to emissions abatement 

CCS already plays an important role in tackling climate change. As can be seen in Figure 16 (page 27) in the Storage section, the 12 large-scale CCS projects in operation are already storing more than 25 million tonnes of CO each year. With a further 8 projects under construction (including two in the electricity generation sector), that figure will increase to over 36 million tonnes of CO a year by 2015.

In addition to these 65 LSIPs there are numerous pilot or smaller-scale demonstration projects around the world. These projects are not all integrated projects; often they are just capture and transport projects, or just storage projects. The table below lists the smaller-scale projects the Global CCS Institute is tracking in the Asia-Pacific region. These projects provide valuable lessons and contributions to the industry’s understanding of different aspects of the technology, whether this is about performance, cost, monitoring measurement and verification, or even non-technical aspects such as public engagement and regulation.

Table1: Smaller-scale operational projects in the Asia-Pacific region

COST OF CCS

Figure 7 below is a 2009 analysis comparing the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) 1of a non-CCS plant with a CCS plant using numbers from the US Gulf Coast. It shows that capture and compression costs represent the largest proportion of CCS costs, followed by storage and then transport. For instance, on a post combustion capture CCS project approximately 94% of the CCS costs are for capture and compression, transport costs represents 1%, and storage costs represents about 5%.

Figure 7: Comparison of LCOE for reference generation, with and without CCS

The cost of CCS is one of the key barriers to deployment. However, CCS is in fact cost competitive with other low-emission technologies (when compared without subsidies). The diagram below uses ‘cost of CO avoided’ to compare the cost of different low emission technologies; this is the best method to compare the cost of low-emission technologies because it compares ‘like with like’. It can be seen that CCS is more expensive than some low-emission technologies in terms of reducing CO emissions, but cheaper than solar and off-shore wind. Using the best cost studies for CCS, it is estimated that CCS with coal costs between US$23-92 per tonne of CO avoided; while CCS with natural gas costs between US$67-106 per tonne of CO avoided2. The wide range illustrates that the actual costs are very site specific, and depend on the size of the plant, the technology being used, the labour and equipment costs etc. 

1 Levelised Cost of Electricity is the break-even electricity price for which a project owner can pay investors and creditors.

2 These costs are based on a review of technologies costs studies by a number of agencies including the IEA, the IPCC, the US Energy Information Agency, WorleyParsons, the US National Energy Technology Laboratory and the US National Renewable Energ Laboratory. The discussion paper can be found at: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/costs-ccs-and-other- low-carbon-technologies

Figure 8: Costs of CO avoided

Figure 9: Levelised cost of electricity

It is important to remember that like all new technologies, costs are expected to dramatically decrease with implementation. The cost of the ‘first-of-a-kind’ projects, will be more expensive than ‘nth-of-a-kind’.

useful  references

› Global CCS Institute, The Global Status of CCS:2013 Chapter 5: Capture, October 2013, http://www.globalccsinstitute. com/publications/global-status-ccs-2013 

› NETL, DOE/NETL Advanced Carbon Dioxide Capture R&D Program: Technology Update, May 2013, http://www.netl. doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/CO Handbook/

CO      CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES

Capture technologies for power generation are generally grouped into three categories:

ƒƒPre-combustion

ƒƒPost-combustion

ƒƒOxyfuel

Figure 10 below illustrates the capture technologies either being used, or planned to be used, in the 65 large scale projects around the world. Pre-combustion (represented by the orange bars) is the most dominant type of capture technology at this stage, but all capture categories are represented.

Figure 10: LSIPs by capture type 

Pre-Combustion

Figure 11: Pre-combustion capture

As the name implies, pre-combustion is where the CO is stripped out before the combustion of the fuel. As can see on the diagram above, in electricity generation the process involves the production of syngas, from which the CO is stripped out and sent to be compressed, and the remaining hydrogen is sent to the turbine for electricity generation.

Pre-combustion technologies currently use chemical or physical absorbents; with physical absorbents being predominant. Absorption is where a substance (e.g. a gas or liquid) sticks to the surface of another substance. This technology is mature and commercially available, given it has been used in various industrial applications for decades. The challenge lies in scaling up this technology for use in the power industry. It is in the scale-up where the significant ‘energy penalty’ and cost lie. Nevertheless, the volume, composition and the properties of the gas in the pre-combustion process holds the promise of lower parasitic power requirements than the post-combustion process.

The table below lists the smaller-scale power generation projects that are currently utilising pre-combustion capture, and notes the large-scale pre-combustion integrated projects (both power and industrial plants).

Table 2: Pre-combustion power generation projects

Advantages

ƒƒCO2  separation via solvent absorption is proven

ƒƒLower parasitic load (compared to post-combustion) due to high CO2  partial pressure

ƒƒCompression costs likely to be lower than post-combustion

ƒƒLower SOx and NOx emissions

ƒƒSyngas can be utilised for other commercial applications after CO2 removal

ƒƒA wide range of hydrocarbon fuels can be utilised as feedstock (oil, gas, coal, petroleum coke) (APEC 2009)

Challenges

ƒƒEnergy penalty around 20%

ƒƒCommercial scale hydrogen turbine still to be demonstrated

ƒƒGasification plants – with increased chain complexity beyond electrical engineering – are unfamiliar to the power sector.

Post Combustion

Figure 12: Post-combustion capture

Post combustion, again as the name implies, is where the CO is stripped out of the flue gas derived after combusting fossil fuels in air.

Post combustion technology can utilise chemical and physical absorption, physical and chemical adsorption, cryogenic separation, membrane separation, or a combination of these. However, amine absorption technology is the most widely utilised.

Amine processes are commercially available and widely used in some industrial processes. Again the challenge lies in scaling-up the technology to strip out the massive amounts for CO from a power station flue gas. However, it is notable that there are at least 9 test facilities operating and demonstrating post combustion capture from coal fired power generation, capturing (collectively) over 500,000 t of CO per annum.

Table 3 below lists the smaller-scale power generational projects that are currently utilising post-combustion capture, and notes the large-scale integrated projects (both power and industrial plants).

Table 3: Post-combustion power generation projects

Advantages

ƒƒModerate temperatures and pressure imposes less stress on equipment

ƒƒPotential for retro-fit and integration (e.g. heat integration, gas recycling, etc)

Challenges

ƒƒMost technologies need significant scaling-up to be relevant to power generation

ƒƒHigh energy penalty around 30%

ƒƒPre-treatment of flue gases (SOx and NOx)

ƒƒHighly integrated system increases complexity of system

ƒƒIncrease in water required around 35%

ƒƒSignificant space requirements could be a challenge at well-established sites

ƒƒPossible amine emissions into atmosphere. 

Oxyfuel

Figure 13: Oxyfuel capture

Usually air is used to combust with fossil fuel. Air comprises about 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. Therefore when fossil fuel is combusted in air, the resulting flue gas has a lot of nitrogen – which leads to the low concentration of CO in the flue gas. In the oxyfuel process, nitrogen is removed from the air in the air separation unit, leaving relatively pure oxygen. This relatively pure oxygen is combusted with the fossil fuel; this has the advantage of producing a relatively pure stream of CO in the flue gas – which is a great benefit for capture and storage.

Oxyfuel plants have a number of major component systems. From the diagram, we can see these include: the air separation unit to provide a pure stream of oxygen; a boiler for burning the coal and oxygen (this is often under negative pressure and it Produces the steam that can be used to drive a steam turbine); a capture unit that mainly separates moisture from a CO stream.

The challenge for oxy-fuel capture is integrating all these major system components at a large scale which requires highly coupled and complex automation control.

The table below lists the smaller-scale power generation projects that are currently utilising oxy combustion capture, and notes the large-scale integrated projects both power and industrial plants).

Table4: Oxyfuel power generation projects

Advantages

ƒƒVery high purity of CO2 stream

ƒƒNOx formation is reduced

ƒƒReduction in size and capital costs of plant equipment compared to conventional air-based combustion system

ƒƒPotential for retro-fit of power stations (APEC 2009)

Challenges

ƒƒRequires an integrated plant

ƒƒHigh temperatures and negative pressures put stress on equipment

ƒƒDevelopment will require a whole of plant approach

ƒƒAir separation unit requires around 25% of electricity produced

ƒƒStart up using air may require additional gas treating equipment

ƒƒIncreased water consumption.

There is currently no capture technology which stands out as a ‘clear winner’; all the technologies have advantages and disadvantages. This may indicate that future carbon capture technology will be a highly diversified portfolio of technologies. While solvent-based technologies are more mature, other capture technologies currently being developed and/or demonstrated may offer step-change in the cost of capture.

useful  references

› Global CCS Institute, The Global Status of CCS:2013 Chapter 5: Capture, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/ publications/global-status-ccs-2013

› IEA, Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage, http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/ publication/name,39359,en.html

› NETL, DOE/NETL Advanced Carbon Dioxide Capture R&D Program: Technology Update, May 2013, http://www.netl. doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/CO Handbook/

CO TRANSPORT

There are four options for the transportation of CO : pipelines, train, truck, ship, or a combination of these.

Sources (clockwise from top left): Environmental News Service, accessed 2013, Winnipeg Free Press, accessed 2013, Smartplanet, accessed 2013, CEM, accessed 2013.

Transportation of CO and other gases by pipelines, trains, trucks and ships is already a reality, occurring daily in many parts of the world.

Given the large volumes of CO

that will be transported as part of large-scale CCS projects, pipelines will be responsible for the majority of the CO to be transported. The total length of pipelines that would be required for all 65 large-scale integrated projects

(LSIPs) globally is around 6,000 km. Pipeline engineering is a mature profession. Extensive networks of pipelines already exist around the world, both on land and under the sea. In the United States alone, there are about 800,000 km of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, in addition to the 3.5 million km of natural gas distribution lines. Some 6,000km of pipelines actively transport CO today.

However, ship transportation can be an alternative to pipelines in some parts of the world; in particular in regions where there is limited access to nearby CO storage reservoirs. There are currently three LSIPs in the planning stages that are considering shipping their CO  to offshore storage locations: these include two CCS projects developed by the Korean Electric Power

Corporation, and the Dongguan Taiyangzhou IGCC-CCS project in the Chinese province of Guangdong.

Truck and train transportation – suitable for much smaller volumes of CO – may be an option for pilot-scale projects.

Risks and environmental impacts

CO pipelines and ships pose no higher risk than that which is already safely managed for transporting hydrocarbons (such as natural gas and oil). Given the maturity of the pipeline profession, there are a number of standards and best practice guidance documents for CO pipelines design, construction and operation3. “CO is largely inert and easily handled” (DNV GL, 2013, p12). Nevertheless, CO pipelines need to regulated to ensure management to mitigate corrosion and leaks to avoid CO inhalation above normal levels (which can have a number of health impacts, e.g. from dizziness to asphyxiation), and cryogenic burns or physical impact injuries (that could potentially occur from pressurised leaks). CO impact surrounding flora and fauna if not dispersed sufficiently.

leaks from pipelines may also 

In addition to the large number of best practice guidance documents for pipelines, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has commenced the development of standards for the full life-cycle of CCS, including CO transportation.

useful  references

› Petroleum Technology Research Centre & Global CCS Institute, What Happens When CO2 is Stored Underground?

Q&A from the IEAHGHG Weyburn-Midale CO Monitoring and Storage Project, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/

publications/what-happens-when-co2-stored-underground-qa-ieaghg-weyburn-midale-co2-monitoring-and-storage- project 

Transport Networks

The initial demand for CO transportation capacity will likely unfold in an incremental and geographically dispersed manner as new dedicated capture plants, storage and EOR facilities are brought online. However, large-scale deployment of CCS would benefit from linking proximate (i.e. geographically close) CO sources with suitable storage sites, either by ship or more likely by so-called ‘back bone’ pipelines, as illustrated in Figure 14, below.

Figure 14: Schematic overview of the South West Hub in Western Australia

Source: Government of Western Australia

The table on page 24 identifies the major CO network initiatives related to CCS around the world.

3 For instance DNV GL’s CCS CO Safety and Environment Major Accident Hazard Risk Management provides a comprehensive summary of key CCS risks and mitigation strategies, as just one well respected guidance document.

The incentives for CCS projects to be developed as part of a hub or a network include economies of scale (lower per unit costs for constructing and operating CO pipelines). These costs are lower than can be achieved with stand-alone projects where each CO 2 point source has its own independent and smaller scale transportation or storage requirement (for example well over 25% lower).

A coordinated network approach can also lower the barriers of entry for all participating CCS projects, including for emitters, that don’t have to develop their own separate transportation and storage solutions.

Benefits and opportunities of integrated network projects are not only linked to economies of scale or technical performance of the transportation network. Network projects can also minimise and streamline efforts in relation to planning and regulatory approvals, negotiations with landowners, and public consultations. However, the establishment of a network brings its own challenges with multiple stakeholders.Given the economies of scale that can be achieved, the benefits of integrated CO transportation networks are apparent, but a network approach can also entail additional challenges, in particular from commercial, financial, and legal perspectives, including:

ƒƒdesign of a multi-user charging framework that reflects the separate infrastructure development, operation, and decommissioning costs and is linked to the allocation of capacity in the system;

ƒƒdevelopment of innovative commercial structures for CO2 networks and hubs to accommodate numerous partners/owners and their different priorities for access to the network;

ƒƒobtain financing for assets that will initially be ‘oversized’ in anticipation of future volumes of CO2 being added to the transportation infrastructure; and

ƒƒmetering or monitoring different sources of CO2 which feed into a common network. Each source could fluctuate, so sources need to be individually tracked and emitters need to receive specific benefits for each tonne of CO supplied.

Regional Considerations

Given the benefits of a CO transportation network, ASEAN may wish to investigate transport optimisation networks within the region.

useful  references

› Global CCS Institute, The Global Status of CCS: 2013, Chapter 6: Transport, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/ publications/global-status-ccs-2013

CO UTILISATION

There are a number of existing and emerging commercial uses for CO which are listed in Appendix II. Most of these uses

require very small amounts of CO , making them niche industries. Of the uses that are estimated to use 5MT+ of CO globally per annum most are in the early stages of development – refer Table 6, below.

Table 6: CO Utilisation Technology Maturity

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2011, p 42

It is important to note the following about CO utilisation:

1. Many uses of CO do not ‘store’ the CO permanently and therefore are not a ‘climate change’ solution.

A single 300MW power project may capture (for example) 2.5MTpa of CO . “This single 300MW (net) demonstration project represents a rate of CO production that is greater than the current non-captive industrial consumption of Japan, South Korea and Australia combined.” (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2011, p14) I.e. supply from a capture project may significantly outstrip demand, thereby requiring geological storage of the remaining CO captured.

3. Even if the CO use is not a permanent ‘storage’ solution, and/or does not utilise all the CO available from a capture project, nevertheless the CO use could provide a revenue stream to help offset the costs of a CCS project. It is also important to note that increased supply of CO will also impact the cost of that CO (i.e. increased supply many translate into decreased cost and therefore lower revenue streams).

CO Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO -EOR) can be considered as both utilisation and storage, given that a significant percentage of CO utilised for enhanced oil recovery is trapped permanently. At this stage, CO -EOR is a significant commercial driver for CCS deployment. In such situations, CO is a valuable commodity, instead of a costly responsibility.

useful  references

› Parson Brinckerhoff, Accelerating the Update of CCS: Industrial Use of Capture Carbon Dioxide, http://www. globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-captured-carbon-dioxide

› Australian National Low Emissions Coal Research & Development, Novel CO2 Capture Taskforce Report, http://www. globalccsinstitute.com/publications/novel-co2-capture-taskforce-report

CO      STORAGE

Injection of CO into geologic formations has been performed for more than 40 years, beginning with attempts to increase oil production from aging reservoirs in western Texas, USA. This process, known as CO –EOR, has proven successful in many reservoirs. As a result, more oil has been produced and more CO stored within the reservoir. It is estimated that more than 130 CO –EOR projects are in operation globally, most in North America. It is also estimated that during the past 40 years nearly 1Gt of CO has been injected into geological reservoirs as part of CO -EOR activities, a significant percentage of this CO remains permanently stored underground. It is therefore important to realise that injecting CO safely underground is not a new activity.

As highlighted in Figure 15 below, CO can be permanently stored in: saline formations, deep un-mineable coal seams, used to enhance oil recovery (EOR); or depleted oil and gas reservoirs. These types of sites have securely contained fluids and gases for millions of years, and with careful selection they can securely store CO for just as long.

Figure 15: Storage Overview

In 1996, the first large–scale dedicated CO storage project (i.e. not an EOR project) called Sleipner in Norway, began injecting CO  into a sandstone reservoir in the North Sea. In operation for around 17 years, it has so far stored more than 14 Mt of CO . Similar dedicated storage projects generally target deep rocks filled with saline or non-potable water, often referred to as saline formations. The CO storage capacity of saline formations is significantly greater than that of oil fields. Therefore, in the future, there will need to be more CCS projects storing CO in deep saline reservoirs to mitigate CO emissions to the atmosphere. However, at this stage of development, CO -EOR is helping to advance deployment of large-scale projects, because EOR revenues can help offset costs.

As can be seen Figure 16 on page 27, the current 65 LSIPs have the potential to store 122 Mtpa; the storage capacity of the 12 LSIPs in operation totals 25 Mtpa.Figure 16: Mass of CO potentially stored by LSIPs

 Site selection

Figure 17 below illustrates that the CO is stored greater than 1 km underground. At this depth, the temperature and pressure keep the CO as a dense fluid, so that it takes up far less volume in the rock. The CO slowly moves through the porous rock, filling the tiny spaces known as pore spaces. A safe store site requires a ‘cap rock’ or a relatively non-porous rock above the porous rock to prevent the CO from migrating up towards the surface.

Figure 17: Storage cross-section

A project must identify a suitable site for safe and permanent storage. The process of identifying an appropriate storage site is called ‘site characterisation’ and requires the collection of a great deal of data, and takes significant time and effort. During this process, there is a series of questions that must be answered (stated very simply in Table 7 below) when progressing from screening to final decision to inject for any type of geological storage. The answers to these questions will not be, for the most part, a simple yes or no: they will be qualified. For example, a response to question 3 (containment) might be that the storage asset is unlikely to leak, as long as a given pressure is not exceeded and this can be monitored.

Table 7: Site characterisation questions

Many ASEAN countries have started this process through engagement with the CCOP project. This site characterisation process utilises the same or similar tools and methodologies that the oil and gas industry have been using for decades to assess oil and gas reservoirs; so again, this is not a new process.

There are a number of guidelines that outline the process for comprehensive storage site characterisation. For instance, DNV GL has published a recommended practice called Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide, which provides guidance on the whole geological storage project lifecycle – illustrated in the diagram below.

Figure 18: Geological storage project lifecycle

Source: DNV GL, 2012, page 7

Monitoring, measurement and verification

The CO injected underground as part of a CCS project needs to be monitored to ensure permanent storage. Monitoring begins before injection to ensure good baseline data is obtained, in order to compare the conditions after injection. For example, CO

might already be present underground, and CO levels naturally fluctuate in the soil near the surface and in the atmosphere.

It is therefore essential to have baseline data to identify natural fluctuation compared to fluctuations due to injected CO . Monitoring, measurement and verification (MMV) continues during and after injection to ensure permanent storage of the CO .

Various monitoring tools – at the subsurface, surface and atmospheric level – developed originally for the oil and gas industry are available and are constantly being improved.

Figure 19: Monitoring, measurement and verification tools

MMV starts with modelling how the CO is predicted to behave underground. Modelling also draws on simulation tools developed by the oil and gas industry that have been utilised for decades. Each project will have to develop an appropriate MMV plan for that site; usually in consultation with the relevant regulatory body. There are many MMV tools that can be utilised as part of the MMV plan, such as:

ƒƒUtilisation of isotopic and chemical tracers

ƒƒVertical Seismic Profiles (VSP)

ƒƒCross-well electromagnetic and seismic

ƒƒSurface seismic: 2D, 3D, time-lapse 3D (4D)

ƒƒElectrical  Resistance Tomography (ERT)

ƒƒPressure  monitoring

ƒƒDown-hole fluid sampling

ƒƒWell logging

ƒƒCore analysis

ƒƒGround water monitoring

ƒƒSoil  gas monitoring

ƒƒAtmospheric CO2 detectors

ƒƒRemote sensing (from satellites)

More information on MV tools is available under ‘Useful references’ on page 30.

Risks and environmental impacts

A well prepared and implemented MMV plan is essential to monitor the movement of CO plume underground and correct or remedy any leaks (i.e. where CO migrates from the storage site back into the atmosphere) or any unintended migration (i.e. where the CO migrates from the intended storage site to other sub-surface areas).

The MMV plan should be based on a rigorous risk assessment, and will form a key element of the project’s risk mitigation and management plan. There are a number of methods to undertake risk assessments, and it is likely that the operating company will have their preferred method. Extensive work has been undertaken on potential risks and hazards of CO storage projects and/ or EOR projects, which can help the operating company (and regulators) to develop project specific risk and mitigation plans – including the associated MMV plan.

The IEA’s Model Regulatory Framework summaries the key health and safety, and environmental risks associated with CO storage that a risk/MMV plan will need to address.

ƒƒSurface release, potentially resulting in [if not dispersed] asphyxiation and ecosystem impacts (effects of leaked CO2 on surrounding populations, worker safety, and effects on the biosphere and hydrosphere such as tree roots, ground animals, and ground and surface water quality).

ƒƒEffects of any impurities present in the injected material on the surface populations, biota and the sub-surface storage media.

ƒƒImpact of CO2 on the sub-surface, through metal or other contaminant mobilisation. This risk may be augmented by the presence of certain impurities.

ƒƒQuantity-based (physical) effects such as ground heave, induced seismicity, displaced groundwater resources and damage to hydrocarbon production.

ƒƒOccupational and civil EHS [environmental, health and safety] risks posed by the presence of, and potential release of, large volumes of pressurized CO at injection facilities and storage sites. (IEA, 2010, p 91)

Underground Injection of natural gas for storage and CO for EOR, as well as naturally occurring CO

leaks, provide lessons on how these risks can and have been mitigated and corrected should they occur.

useful references Site  characterisation

›  DNV GL, Recommend Practice Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide,   http://www.dnv.com/industry/oil_gas/services_

and_solutions/technical_advisory/process_integrity/ccs_carbon_capture_storage/recommended_practices/MMV  tools

› US Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Monitoring, Verification and Accounting Focus Area http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/corerd/mva.html

›  CSLF  Technical  Group,  2013  Annual  Report  by  the  CSLF  Task  Force  on  Reviewing  Best  Practices   and Standards for Geologic Storage and Monitoring of CO ReviewingBestPracticesStandards_2013Report.pdf

http://www.cslforum.org/publications/documents/

Risk assessment

› DNV GL, CO2RISKMAN: Guidance on CCS CO2 safety and environment major accident hazard risk management, http:// www.dnv.com/industry/energy/segments/carbon_capture_storage/recommended_practice_guidelines/co2riskman/

lEGAl AND REGulATORy FRAmEWORk DEvElOpmENTS

Early action regarding CCS regulation was focused on international regulatory mechanisms – and removal of barriers to the implementation of CCS. For instance, the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Protocol) was amended in 2006 to allow for offshore CO storage. It included CO as one of the materials, or ‘wastes’, which could be injected into the subsea bed. This amendment was made to the Annex to the Protocol, which meant that the amendment came into force without having to be ratified by contracting parties. This is of particular relevance to the Philippines which is a party to the London Protocol.

The London Protocol was again amended in October 2009 to allow for cross-border transportation of CO for the purposes of storage. The 2009 Protocol amendment will only enter into force after two-thirds (28 of 43) of all Contracting Parties to the London Protocol have adopted the amendment.

The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) was also amended in 2007 to adopt similar provisions. This required ratification by at least seven contracting parties – and in 2011 it received the required ratification and entered into force.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showed early support for CCS by releasing Guidelines for National GHG Inventories which included a specific chapter on providing guidance to estimating emission reductions for CCS.

In the 2010 at the United Nations Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) held in Mexico, CCS was provisionally adopted into the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM, providing that a limited number of issues were resolved. In 2011 at COP17 held in Durban, most of these issues were addressed, and CCS was confirmed as eligible under the Clean Development Mechanism. Two issues remain outstanding – the cross-border movement of CO and the development

of a global reserve fund. Despite these unresolved issues, CCS projects can now apply for CDM credits.

With the current low value of CDM credits, it is unlikely that this alone will be able to incentivise a large scale CCS project. Nevertheless, the international climate change community now acknowledges that CCS is a viable mitigation technology, officially recognised in the UNFCCC framework.

There are other aspects or mechanisms of the UNFCCC which are relevant to CCS. For instance – countries can identify CCS as one of the key mitigation technologies in their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions – their NAMAs. If CCS is recognised in a country’s NAMA this may facilitate funding and support from other countries that can ‘match’ this.

Dedicated CCS Legislation

There are a number of jurisdictions – at the regional, national, and state or provincial level – that have developed, or are developing, CCS legislation. For instance:

Jurisdictions with enacted CCS-related legislation:

ƒƒAustralia

ƒƒVictoria

ƒƒSouth Australia

ƒƒQueensland

ƒƒCanada

ƒƒAlberta

ƒƒSaskatchewan

ƒƒUnited States

ƒƒIllinois

ƒƒLouisiana

ƒƒMontana

ƒƒNorth Dakota

ƒƒTexas

ƒƒWyoming

ƒƒEuropean Union

ƒƒMost of the 27 Members States either have transposed – or are currently transposing – the European CCS Directive into their legislation.

Jurisdictions currently developing legislation:

ƒƒAustralia

ƒƒNew South Wales

ƒƒWestern Australia

ƒƒCanada

ƒƒBritish  Columbia

ƒƒNova Scotia

ƒƒJapan

ƒƒNew Zealand

ƒƒNorway

ƒƒSouth Africa.

In addition, there are a number of countries, including ASEAN countries (as discussed above) which have undertaken CCS regulatory reviews. In some cases the legislation developed takes a reasonably holistic approach to regulating CCS (e.g. the European Union and Australia), while in some jurisdictions (e.g. the US) the legislation deals with discrete aspects of the process.

The existing body of legislation, and the lessons being learnt from ‘second generation regulators’4, provides a good basis for countries just beginning to think about their CCS regulatory environments. There are several organisations which provide updates on the progress of regulatory developments around the world, which next generation CCS regulators may find useful – these are listed under ‘Useful References’ on page 29.

The IEA’s Model Regulatory Framework identifies 29 CCS regulatory issues – listed in the box below. The Framework discusses each of these issues, and identifies regulatory options for addressing the issue. Even the most comprehensive legislation does not address all 29 issues, but it is also a useful reference document for policymakers. In addition, the document provides legislative ‘example’ text which may be a good starting point for policy makers and regulators.

box 1: List of CCS regulatory issues

Source: IEA Model Regulatory Framework

Regional Considerations

tranS-Boundary  iSSueS  For  aSean

Trans-boundary issues may be of particular relevance to ASEAN as a region.

Trans-boundary transport of CO

This may entail transportation of CO from the source in one jurisdiction to a storage site in another jurisdiction; or the transportation of CO from the source to the storage site, through a third jurisdiction.

Trans-boundary storage sites.

This may entail a storage site straddling the border of two jurisdictions, or it may entail unintended migration of CO from astorage site in one jurisdiction, impacting on the sub-surface in another jurisdiction. For example, CO from a storage site may unintentionally migrate into a producing gas field in a neighbouring jurisdiction.

These trans-boundary issues require a harmonised or agreed approach between relevant jurisdictions in regulating, and therefore

4 The jurisdictions that already have CCS legislation in place have pioneered the way; second generation regulators and policymakers are those that have now commenced the process of reconciling their future policy commitments with their existing regulatory regimes.

managing, these issues. Relevant regulatory mechanisms include “exploration permit applications and authorisations; storage permit applications, authorisations and reviews; monitoring requirements; inspections; closure requirements; post-closure requirements; and the handling of long-term responsibility for the storage site and any associated liabilities.” (IEA, 2010, p 31)

LiaBiLity 

The issue of legal liability for the stored CO is of interest to many countries considering CCS. ‘Liability’ for stored CO could mean “any legal liabilities arising from a storage site (for example, through civil law, for damage to the environment, human health or third party property); responsibility for undertaking and bearing the cost of any corrective or remediation measures associated with a storage site; and responsibility for making good any leakage of CO to the atmosphere, where CCS operations are undertaken as part of a CO emissions reduction scheme. ‘Long-term liability’ is generally used to refer to any liability arising after the permanent cessation of CO injection and active monitoring of the site.” (IEA, 2011, p 9 

Like liability for most industrial activities during operation, liability for stored CO during the injection phase and for a defined period of time after injection, rests with the operator. However, the approach jurisdictions have taken to long-term liability of stored CO liability’:

is often of particular interest. Two options have emerged from the existing legislation for managing ‘long-term

1. Long-term liability is transferred from the operator to the State after a specified period of time
2. Long-term liability remains with the operator in perpetuity; this may be the default option if the legislation is silent on the issue of long-term liability.

Both the Australian and European Union legislation (countries that have reasonably comprehensive CCS regulatory regimes) transfer responsibility from the operator to the State after certain conditions have been met. The European Union’s CCS Directive includes provisions to allow a Member State’s competent authority to assume liability for the stored CO once “all EU Directive includes a ‘post-closure’ period of 20 years (i.e. the operator retains liability for at least 20 years following the cessation of injection and closure of the site); but if the competent authority is convinced that the CO is safely stored, and is willing to accept the liability, this period may be shortened. The competent authority is able to seek a financial contribution from the operator to cover their expected costs of monitoring the site once they have taken over liability; but they must seek this cost recovery before they accept liability.the available evidence indicates that the stored CO will be completely and permanently contained.” (EU Directive, 2009) The

As European Member States transpose the CCS Directive into their own legislation, differences in the length of the ‘post closure’ period have emerged. However, it is a generally accepted principle that the likelihood and therefore risk of leakage reduces over time after injection has ceased; i.e. if the storage site were to leak, it would most likely do so either during injection or within the first years after injection.

The Australian Government will assume liabilities, including common law liabilities, for CCS projects that are undertaken in Commonwealth waters. It will do so no less than 20 years after injection ceases, subject to the responsible Commonwealth Minister being satisfied that the risks can be managed. This process involves four steps:

1. Once injection ceases, the title holder applies for a site closure certificate. The Minister must make a decision within five years on whether to grant this certificate, and will only grant a certificate if the post injection monitoring shows that the stored substance does not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment.
2. A closure certificate will also require the pre‐payment by the operator of monies to fund a longer‐term monitoring program.
3. Once the closure certificate is issued, the title holder’s statutory obligations cease but common law liabilities will continue.
4. At least 15 years after the closure certificate is issued, and subject to the behaviour of the stored substance being as predicted, the Commonwealth may then indemnify the operator against the relevant liabilities.

CCS ready

The introduction of a CCS-Ready (CCSR) policy anticipates a future transition to broader carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment. Some countries are implementing CCSR policies as an intermediate step towards to CCS; a step that ASEAN countries may wish to consider. The Global CCS Institute’s definition of CCSR, developed in consultation with a wide range of CCS stakeholders, is widely accepted:

A CCSR facility is a large-scale industrial or power source of CO which could and is intended to be retrofitted with

CCS technology when the necessary regulatory and economic drivers are in place. The aim of building new facilities or modifying existing facilities to be CCSR is to reduce the risk of carbon emission lock-in or of being unable to fully utilise the facilities in the future without CCS (stranded assets). CCSR is not a CO mitigation option, but a way to facilitate CO mitigation in the future. CCSR ceases to be applicable in jurisdictions where the necessary drivers are already in place, or once they come in place.

EssEntial REquiREmEnts of a CCsR faCility

The essential requirements represent the minimum criteria that should be met before a facility can be considered CCSR. The project developer should:

ƒƒcarry out a site-specific study in sufficient engineering detail to ensure the facility is technically capable of being fully retrofitted for CO capture, using one or more choices of technology which are proven or whose performance can be reliably estimated as being suitable

ƒƒdemonstrate that retrofitted capture equipment can be connected to the existing equipment effectively and without an excessive outage period and that there will be sufficient space available to construct and safely operate additional capture and compression facilities

ƒƒidentify realistic pipeline or other route(s) to storage of CO2 ƒƒidentify one or more potential storage areas which have been appropriately assessed and found likely to be suitable for safe geological storage of projected full lifetime volumes and rates of captured CO

ƒƒidentify other known factors, including any additional water requirements that could prevent installation and operation of CO capture, transport and storage, and identify credible ways in which they could be overcome ƒƒestimate the likely costs of retrofitting capture, transport and storage ƒƒengage in appropriate public engagement and consideration of health, safety and environmental issues, and ƒreview CCSR status and report on it periodically.

A CCSR policy requires project proponents to expend upfront costs to carry out engineering and cost estimate studies as well as undertaking storage assessments. As a guide, the Government of the United Kingdom estimates that the overall costs of a CCSR requirement per new combustion power station is equivalent to less than 0.1% of the capital cost of a 1600 MW coal fired power station and about 0.3% of the capital cost of an 800MW gas fired power station.

useful  references

› Global CCS Institute, CCS Ready policy and regulations state of play, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/ ccs-ready-policy-and-regulations-state-play

› Global CCS Institute, CCS Ready Issues Brief, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/ccs-ready-issues-brief

› ICF International, CCS Ready Policy: Considerations and Recommended Practices for Policymakers, http://www. globalccsinstitute.com/publications/ccs-ready-policy-considerations-and-recommended-practices-policymakers

Approach to development

The Global CCS Institute has developed an approach to help countries start the process of legal and regulatory development. The Institute has facilitated either part of the process or the full process in, Malaysia, Romania, Scotland, Trinidad & Tobago, and Victoria. This process may be of interest to ASEAN countries interested in exploring CCS legal and regulatory issues. Essentially the process has four key steps that can be adapted to suit a country’s needs, interests or conditions:

1. Stakeholder analysis
2. Legal and regulatory analysis, to identify existing permits, approvals, or certificates etc. that would most likely be required for a CCS project in the current regulatory framework, as the basis to identify gaps, overlaps and areas of improvement in the existing framework.
3. Legal and regulatory workshop, aimed at discussing the gaps, overlaps and areas of the improvement revealed in the review, potentially utilising a CCS project scenario (either real or hypothetical) to ‘walk through’ the existing framework as a good way to consider the issues.
4. Develop an action plan, based on the recommendations or conclusions of the earlier steps, develop and action plan that is ultimately aimed at legislative development.

useful  references

› Global CCS Institute, The Global Status of CCS:2013 Chapter 4: Policy, Legal and Regulatory Developments, October

2013,  http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-ccs-2013

›  Global CCS Institute, Carbon Capture Legal Program, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/networks/cclp

› International Energy Agency (IEA), Carbon Capture and Storage Legal and Regulatory Review (Edition 2), http:// www.iea.org/topics/ccs/ccslegalandregulatoryissues/ieainternationalccsregulatorynetwork/

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

The importance of public engagement as part of a successful CCS project is becoming increasingly recognised. Responses to the Global CCS Institute’s annual survey of project proponents over the past couple of years have demonstrated a growing awareness of best practice in public engagement and recognition of the importance of proactive, successful public engagement to enable CCS demonstration projects to proceed.

The Institute is four years into its partnership with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to conduct an international research program into the social factors that can affect the successful deployment of CCS projects. The Institute–coordinated program has delivered a total of 14 research projects undertaken by 10 international research institutions, and 29 final reports, as well as several ongoing journal publications. There are therefore numerous guidelines and case studies which countries can draw upon to develop best practice public engagement plans.

With several CCS projects in 2013 progressing through, or making substantial developments within, their lifecycle phases, more projects around the world are utilising this best practice learning that has emerged from early CCS demonstrations. Developers are making serious attempts to understand the social context in which they operate and manage the potential social effects of their projects. However, challenges remain. Following the global financial crisis, funding for large, capital intensive infrastructure projects is scarce, and sensitivity to higher energy bills is increasing, resulting in a stronger need to persuasively articulate the need for, and value of, commercial-scale CCS projects. Persistent issues relate to a lack of understanding of CCS, CO , and energy more generally, leading to confusion, misinformation, and increased perceptions of risk – particularly about CO transportation and storage.

Understanding local communities – social site characterisation

There has been very little change in the types of communities in which CCS projects report having interactions; the majority of project sites are based in industrial and farmland areas. However, among the newly developing projects in the Asia Pacific region (particularly China, which has experienced the most new growth in number of CCS projects over the past few years), more are considering sites that transect moderately in highly populated areas.

A high-level stakeholder engagement is standard practice for most large energy infrastructure projects. However, when high profile projects seek to operate in, or near, residential areas, a critical part of project management involves gaining a comprehensive understanding of the local community and its socio-political context. This process can also help to inform a sound public engagement strategy.

If we could turn back the clock, I think we would invest in a more comprehensive community profile. Many of the challenges we face now have very little to do with CCS safety and more with legacy issues. Comprehensive baseline data would support regular monitoring for changes in behaviour and help us better target our messaging and engagement activities.

Dominique van Gent, SouthWest Hub Project, Australia

This process of understanding the local communities likely to be impacted by a project is called ‘social site characterisation’. The term is purposefully similar to the technical terminology used on projects (storage site characterisation) in order to emphasise the equal importance of understanding the socio-political context of a potential project site.

The Institute’s 2013 CCS Project Survey results revealed a growing confidence in the comprehensiveness of social site characterisation data collected by projects. However, some projects in the Evaluate and Define stages of the project lifecycle did report shortcomings in their very early site analysis. These issues most often arise during early land access negotiations, and to manage them can prove expensive and labour intensive. If land access for initial investigations is not granted, extensive delays at an early stage of project development can occur.

The challenge is not always the result of inadequate early research or poor characterisation of stakeholder issues. Because of the long lead times associated with most CCS projects, changes in social circumstances are inevitable, so it is important to monitor the situation and keep key stakeholders informed of developments.

The Institute has recently published a set of comprehensive case studies from the ULCOS Blast Furnace Project in France which examine the processes of social site characterisation and stakeholder management, in an effort to demonstrate useful methods for collecting and analysing social site data.

Trends in social research

The CSIRO and the Institute recently completed a review and analysis of the key themes emerging from the recent body of CCS related social research. The full analysis and helpful extended references are published on the Institute’s website, however the seven key themes and recommendations emerging from the review are provided in the box on the next page.

box 2: Key themes and recommendations from a synthesis of CSIRO-led social research

Framing CCS

ƒƒPerceptions of climate change vary from belief in climate change to scepticism and denial. Therefore, in contextualising

CCS, consideration should be given to all positions and not focus on mitigation alone.

ƒƒIn discussing CCS, clearly define the rationale for the technology’s implementation and take into consideration the national and international policies that underpin CCS.

ƒƒCompare energy options transparently and communicate clearly, include issues and explanations of the wider energy debate.

local context

ƒƒTake into account a community’s social, cultural, economic, and political characteristics and the impact a CCS project may have on the community (the social site characterisation tool can be a useful aid).

ƒƒEstablish a baseline of knowledge and awareness across affected communities to better understand information needs, minimise misunderstandings, and avoid false expectations.

ƒƒTo anticipate and prevent any unplanned issues, consider a community’s local history and pre-existing concerns, as well as the overarching local, state, and national perspective.

Trust

ƒƒIdentify reliable individuals, organisation, and institutions within the community to ensure that those communicating messages on CCS are trusted.

ƒƒEnsure that advice and information provided to stakeholders is trusted, reliable, and informative and provided in a way that allows sufficient time for it be absorbed.

ƒƒTo assist in smooth information transfer and feedback, consider established a citizen’s advisory committee or some form of community  participation group.

Communication and engagement processes

ƒƒTarget gaps in local knowledge about CCS (identified through baseline research).

ƒƒEngage in meaningful dialogue with stakeholders and the public well in advance of finalising project plans, making use of trusted advocates within different stakeholder groups.

ƒƒUse a wide variety of engagement processes and tools that promote open and transparent dialogue and help to establish effective relationships.

ƒƒEmbed experienced, high-level communication/engagement resources in a CCS project development team.

Information

ƒƒProvide wide-ranging information (i.e. formal, informal, technical, simple) to stakeholders through a variety of reliable sources to develop trust and ensure stability of opinion.

ƒƒProvide information that is balanced, of high quality, relevant, of minimal complexity, appropriately toned, and readily accessible to a range of stakeholders.

ƒƒDevelop information delivery programs tailored to different audiences e.g. courses on broad issues such as climate change, energy options, and potential mitigations solutions delivered through educational  institutions.

› Global CCS Institute, Social site characterisation & stakeholder management http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/ publications/social-site-characterisation-stakeholder-management

› CSIRO, Social Site Characterisation: From Concept to Application http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/ social-site-characterisation-concept-application

› CSIRO Synthesis of CCS social research: Reflections and current state of play in 2013 http://www.globalccsinstitute. com/publications/synthesis-ccs-social-research-reflections-and-current-state-play-2013

SuppORTING mEChANISmS

Government policies for accelerating the development and deployment of CCS are driven by broader climate change policy to meet domestic targets and international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The importance of CCS in supporting climate change policy is also influenced by objectives regarding energy security in a carbon-constrained world that will continue to use fossil fuels, at least for the medium term. Depending on the country, other complementary policy objectives might include:

ƒƒfostering a clean energy technology sector that can compete globally in offering CCS technologies or services

ƒƒreducing the carbon footprint of exports

ƒƒpromoting regional economic development where opportunities exist to establish a CO2 ‘hub’

ƒƒinjecting CO2  to undertake enhanced hydrocarbon recovery in conjunction with permanent geological storage.

A key challenge is that the benefits to society from innovation cannot be fully captured by those undertaking costly research and development including pilot or large-scale demonstrations. Investments in innovation generates knowledge that spills over to other firms and users, reducing the returns to innovators and the incentive to marshal sufficient resources to fully support innovation in new technologies. Overall, this leads to underinvestment in developing new technologies and a slower and less efficient path of innovation, including for responding to the challenges of climate change. In large energy-intensive industries, this issue is exacerbated due to the long life span of capital investments and the significant uncertainty about the long-term future.

To overcome this lack of investment in the early stage of development, governments – through technology and innovation policies

– directly address the risks and barriers faced along the cycle in commercialising new technologies. CCS policy ‘frameworks’ define the support measures, initiatives, or interventions undertaken by governments to accelerate it through the technology development cycle.

Different policy instruments should be utilised at the different phases of the technology development lifecycle. At the early stages of demonstration and deployment, policy instruments should be specifically focused on advancing the technology, to demonstrate its viability and help make cost reduction innovations; not aimed at emission reductions per se. As the technology reaches more mature levels of development, policy instruments should move towards technology-neutral, economy wide measures, such as putting a price on carbon. The report A Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage discusses the different policy and financial instruments that can be utilised domestically at different stages along the CCS technology lifecycle.

Start small and scale up

It’s broadly accepted that a good approach to CCS development is to start with a pilot-scale project, scale this project up to a demonstration project, before moving to a commercial scale project. This approach enables a step-wise approach to ‘learning- by-doing’ which is essential for CCS deployment. The ADB developed a useful ‘illustrative roadmap’ that identifies these three main stages for CCS development which can be found at Appendix III.

If ASEAN Member States decide that CCS is a technology it wants to support as part of its greenhouse gas reduction strategies

– and possibly to achieve the related policy aims listed above – then it is prudent to start with a pilot-scale project; an approach Indonesia has adopted. Governments can self-fund such a small scale project, or alternatively, there are international finance mechanisms that could support the development of pilot and even demonstration scale projects.

INTERNATIONAl SuppORT mEChANISmS FOR DEvElOpING COuNTRIES

Dedicated CCS financial contributions

Since 2009 a number of governments and organisations have collectively contributed or allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to current and future activities in developing countries to support:

ƒƒknowledge sharing, capacity development, raising awareness about different aspects of CCS

ƒƒpre-investment activities such as high-level storage assessments, country-level scoping studies, pilot-level investigative studies

ƒƒbilateral and/or multilateral projects

ƒƒcontributions to organisations that in turn undertake these CCS outreach activities (such as APEC, Bellona, Clinton Climate

Initiative, International Energy Agency).

Organisations and countries that have contributed significant funds in this space include the EU, the Australian Government, the Global CCS Institute, the Norwegian Government, the UK Government and the US Government.

$138 million of this funding has been contributed to dedicated CCS Trust Funds or capacity development programs to support pre-investment and enabling activities as detailed in Table 8 below.

Table8: Funding allocations for CCS in developing countries

1. Actual final amounts are subject to exchange rate variation, so these should be considered as rounded estimates.
2. As at March 2013. These figures should be considered as rounded estimates, and it should be noted that there are projects in the pipeline that will call on some of these available funds.
3. For the Global CCS Institute Capacity Development Program funds shown are only those expended (but not funds allocated to out-years).

Carbon Credits

As reported in the ‘Legal and Regulatory Framework Developments’ section, in 2010 at the United Nations Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) held in Mexico, CCS was provisionally adopted into the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), providing that a limited number of issues were resolved. In 2011 at COP17 held in Durban, most of these issues were addressed, and CCS was confirmed as eligible under the CDM. Two issues remain outstanding – the cross-border movement of CO and the development of a global reserve fund. Despite these unresolved issues, CCS projects can now apply for CDM credits. With the current low value of CDM credits (currently under €1) this will offset only a very small proportion of a CCS project.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the world’s largest market for certified emission reduction credits, and CCS projects are eligible under the EU ETS. The price of EU credits fell from an all-time high in April 2006 of €30 per tonne of CO abated, to its current price of around €5. Again, at this stage the EU ETS would only offset a small proportion of cost.

As they develop, there may be other carbon credit mechanisms which can help offset the cost of a CCS project in developing countries, such as Japan’s Bilateral Offset Carbon Mechanism.

UNFCCC Green Climate Fund

The UNFCCC Green Climate Fund (GCF) is being positioned to become the main global fund for climate change finance, and in time will seek to leverage additional private and public finance. It was announced at the UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties (COP 15) in the Copenhagen Accord – with an ambition of raising $100 billion a year by 2020 of public and private finance.

The GCF Governing Instrument for the Green Climate Fund was endorsed at COP17, 2011. The instrument includes funding for a broad set of eligible activities, including: capacity building, technical assistance for ‘readiness’ activities, such as preparing climate change related strategies, and technology development and transfer. CCS was explicitly stated as being eligible.

Developed countries kick-started their commitment by pledging what has become known as ‘fast-start financing’. The UNFCCC has reported that the collective commitment from developed countries to provide new and additional resources was approaching US$30 billion for the period 2010-12. Many countries managed the disbursement of their own fast-start financing (e.g. Australia, USA, Canada, Sweden), and many countries have committed all or most of these funds.

The GCF has since established a Board, a Secretariat, and an interim Trustee (the World Bank), and is headquartered in Seoul, Korea. In June 30, 2013, the total amount of pledges and contributions to the GCF Trust Fund amounted to USD equivalent of

$9 million; noting that this does not include the ‘fast-start financing’. It is expected that the GCF will be a significant source of financial contributions to CCS in the future.

useful  references

› IEA, A Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage, http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ policy_strategy_for_ccs.pdf

STRATEGIC ISSuES AND NExT STEpS

Strategic Issues

To effectively mitigate climate change and provide energy security, there is an urgent need to progress CCS pilot and demonstration projects around the world, including in ASEAN Member States where there is a high reliance on fossil fuel in industry and/or the power sector, which is expected to continue in the future. The policy driver for CCS remains reduction of CO Mechanism’ include:

emissions. However, other strategic considerations flagged in the ‘Supporting 

ƒƒfostering a clean energy technology sector that can compete globally in offering CCS technologies or services

ƒƒreducing the carbon footprint of exports, which may become necessary in an increasingly carbon-constrained world

ƒƒpromoting regional economic development where opportunities exist to establish a CO2 ‘hub’

ƒƒinjecting CO2 to undertake enhanced hydrocarbon recovery (associated with enhanced hydrocarbon revenues) in conjunction with permanent geological storage.

Successful demonstration of CCS will facilitate ‘learning by doing’, while innovation combined with advances in capture technology, will bring down costs – one of the major barriers to CCS deployment. It is vital that CCS is included in a portfolio of low-carbon technologies to tackle climate change at least cost. The Global CCS Status: 2013 identifies important CCS recommendations for policymakers around the world:

ƒƒimplement sustained policy support that includes long-term commitments to climate change mitigation and strong market– based mechanisms that ensure CCS is not disadvantaged

ƒƒboost short-term support for the implementation of pilot or demonstration projects. This will require targeted financial support measures that enable first mover projects to progress faster through development planning into construction and provide necessary support during operations

ƒƒimplement measures to address existing regulatory uncertainties, such as long-term liability. This will involve learning from the efforts of jurisdictions within Australia, Canada, Europe and the US, where significant legal and regulatory issues have been, and continue to be, resolved

ƒƒcontinue strong funding support for CCS research and development activities and encourage collaborative approaches to knowledge sharing across the CCS community

ƒƒcreate a positive pathway for CCS demonstration by advancing plans for storage site selection

ƒƒencourage the efficient design and development of transportation infrastructure through shared hub opportunities to become ‘trunk lines’ for several carbon dioxide capture projects.

learning by doing

Given the significant – but manageable – challenges associated with implementing CCS projects, many developing countries are opting to take a ‘wait and see’ approach – in terms of proving the technological reliability, community acceptability and affordability of CCS projects. So why should ASEAN countries start the process of demonstrating CCS now? Given the long lead times associated with implementing CCS projects, ASEAN countries should start undertaking the pre-investment, enabling and demonstration activities now (many of which will need to address country-specific requirements), in order to be in a position to benefit from emission reductions from CCS in the coming decades.

For CCS to be sustainably deployed, ASEAN countries should be supported to engage directly in ‘testing’ CCS at a demonstration scale before moving towards its wider deployment when the costs and energy penalty have decreased. By participating in this ‘learning-by-doing’ demonstration phase, skills and knowledge will be transferred to the ASEAN Member Countries allowing for indigenously based solutions to be sourced to address identified challenges.

There are some aspects of CCS that are ‘transferrable’ from countries that have already implemented CCS. However, there are some things that must be tested or developed domestically, which mitigate against taking a wait and see approach. Key among these is an understanding of the local geology to identify geological basins and sites that are suitable for permanent, safe geological storage of CO2 which is essential for CCS. Storage characterisation from a basin down to a site specific level, can take 3-6 years depending on how much is already known. Developing appropriate legislative and regulatory frameworks must also be done domestically, and can take considerable time, depending on the individual circumstances of each country or region.

Avoiding the ‘wait and see’ approach is particularly relevant for countries which have a high reliance on fossil fuel, and where CCS is going to have to play a significant role in its emission reductions strategy. The following section suggests some concrete next steps around the key strategic ‘themes’ highlighted above for ASEAN and ASEAN Members States, to progress CCS.

The steps in the green boxes must be ultimately driven by ASEAN Member States. However, the ASEAN forum can provide support for the implementation of these steps based on knowledge sharing mechanisms that ASEAN Member States may be interested in. The steps in the red boxes are well placed to be facilitated through the ASEAN forum.

Next Steps

Table 9: Next steps

1. asEan mEmbER statEs to CommEnCE oR ContinuE to paRtiCipatE in CCop REgional stoRagE pRogRam

Identifying suitable storage sites is essential for CCS, yet storage assessment can take many years to complete. Some jurisdictions with CCS flagship financial support programs (e.g. Australia, European Union) found that the technical readiness for capture was more advanced than the characterisation of suitable storage sites – necessitating more time in preparing for CCS through storage assessment. It is therefore important that ASEAN Member States continue their engagement with the Coordinating Committee for Geoscience Programmes in East and Southeast Asia (CCOP) regional storage programme. CCOP is developing a cross-border mapping program to characterise storage reservoirs within the Southeast Asia region. The project is designed to support existing CO geological storage activities and kick-start implementation of storage mapping in member countries without an existing program. The mapping program aims to provide a forum for knowledge sharing among the member countries and develop a guideline for national CO 1 July 2013.

storage mapping along with a CCOP CO

Storage Atlas. It is expected to be implemented over four years, starting

Key outcomes from CCOP could be shared through an ASEAN CCS knowledge forum to help keep policy-makers informed.

1. utilising knowlEdgE and tools fRom CCop dEvElop stoRagE ChaRaCtERisation fRom CountRy, basin to sitE-spECifiC lEvEls

The CCOP program will provide geological experts in ASEAN Member States with an understanding of the geological storage assessment process and introductions to international storage experts and organisations. This knowledge can help Member States continue to develop the pre-commercial geological assessment work, from country level, to basin level, to site specific assessment.

ASEAN Member States are encouraged to develop their own storage assessment programs building on the CCOP regional program.

1. dRawing on Existing RECommEndations foR fiRst-movER pRojECts, dEvElop sCoping study foR pilot/dEmonstRation sCalE pRojECt

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) in its report Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in Southeast Asia, has made concrete recommendations for first-mover pilot scale projects in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. The production of high-content CO  fields coming on-line in Malaysia might also present an opportunity for a CCS-related pilot project.  In addition, it has been reported that Myanmar may be considering a CCS project in its Dawei Special Economic Zone.

Given the long lead times for developing CCS, ASEAN Member States are encouraged to start the process of development and ‘learning by doing’ now, according to the ADB illustrative roadmap in Appendix III. Following the example set by Indonesia, it is suggested that ASEAN Member States develop a scoping study for a first-mover CCS project. There may be international support, either bilaterally, or through dedicated CCS Trust Funds for this work.

1. pRogREss implEmEntation of pilot/dEmonstRation sCalE pRojECt aCCoRding to sCoping study

The scoping study will provide the project-specific roadmap to implement a pilot scale projects at a specific location. An ASEAN CCS knowledge forum could help to facilitate deployment by discussing and addressing challenges and barriers, and keep policy-makers informed.

1. undERtakE nExt stEps in REgulatoRy REviEw and dEvElopmEnt

As discussed in the section on CCS Activities in ASEAN, a number of ASEAN Member States have already completed an initial legal and regulatory review. The regulatory development process can be adapted to meet the specific needs of each country. However, key aspects of this process may include:

1. Assess if CCS pilot project can be undertaken within existing regulatory regime;
2. Analyse regulatory framework to identify if and how CCS could be accommodated within existing regime (identification of gaps, overlaps and areas for improvement).

ƒƒSome countries may wish to adopt project-level legislation before adapting their broader frameworks for CCS, or developing CCS-specific legislation. This may be a good approach for a CCS pilot project that is not able to be accommodated within the existing regime. These decisions will be influenced by the outcome of the regulatory analysis.

ƒƒThere is likely to be various iterations of the regulatory analysis step, starting with a preliminary analysis and getting progressively more detailed depending on the specific barriers to implementation in a country.

1. Develop options for legislation, regulations and/or standards to address gaps, overlaps and areas for improvement - according to each Member State’s regulatory development process, e.g:

ƒƒidentification of legislative, regulatory or quasi-regulatory approaches

ƒƒassessing impact of these options (e.g. from a cost, benefit and risk perspective)

ƒƒconsultation throughout development process.

1. Draft legislation, regulation or quasi-regulation, according to each Member State’s drafting process.
2. Manage the introduction of legislation or regulation through Parliament or relevant approval process.

Organisations like the Global CCS Institute and potentially the World Bank and ADB may be able to help facilitate this process. An ASEAN CCS knowledge forum could help policy-makers and key stakeholders discuss key policy issues that are relevant to a number of states, and options for addressing them.

1. make Required Legislative Changes to accommodate pilot/demonstration scale projects.

Legislative changes to facilitate the implementation of pilot or demonstration scale projects should be a priority.

1. Undertake Rgional source-sink mapping and sCopE potEntial tRanspoRt nEtwoRk

Given the potential benefits of a CO transport network, including economies of scale, lowering barriers to entry for industry in the

medium-to-long term, and better technical performance of transport systems, it is suggested that the ASEAN region investigate possible transport networks based on a regional-source sink mapping exercise.

ASEAN is uniquely placed to facilitate such a study for the ASEAN region.

A transport network study could be based on the regional storage assessment which is a key deliverable of the Coordinating Committee for Geoscience Programmes in East and Southeast Asia (CCOP) regional storage programme. It is anticipated that this regional storage assessment will not be completed for a couple of years, which will have an impact on the timing of such a transport network study.

1. disCuss tRans-boundaRy issuEs in asEan foRum

A regional source-sink mapping study coupled with the identification of optimal regional transport networks provides a good basis for identifying trans-boundary transport and storage issues that will be relevant to the ASEAN region. The ASEAN provides an optimal forum to discuss those strategic issues and identify possible solutions.

1. CasE study on applying good pRaCtiCE publiC EngagEmEnt in asEan CountRy/REgion

Social research has already been undertaken on the development and implementation of good practice guidelines regarding communication and public engagement on CCS. As discussed in the ‘Importance of Public Engagement’ section, much of this research has been facilitated by the Global CCS Institute in partnership with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia. However, these good practice approaches have not been applied or tested within the context of a developing country.

It is suggested that ASEAN could make a very useful contribution in this social research space by participating in a case study on applying good practice public engagement in an ASEAN country or as a region.

If this is of interest, the Global CCS Institute could propose a study outline to be discussed, revised and agreed by ASEAN Centre for Energy.

1. agREE asEan knowlEdgE shaRing pRaCtiCEs to lEaRn fRom CCs pRojECts in thE REgion

As discussed above, a number of CCS-related activities will need to be progressed at the ASEAN Member State level, for instance: country-level storage assessment, pilot project, and country specific legal and regulatory frameworks.

Nevertheless, ASEAN Member States may like to utilise the ASEAN forum as a way to share lessons learnt and discuss challenges in addressing both Member State actions as well as regionally-based activities. There are a number of knowledge-sharing mechanisms that could be utilised in the ASEAN forum. For instance:

ƒƒestablishing a CCS network

ƒƒestablishing a dedicated extranet website

ƒƒregular updates on topics of interest during at ASEAN Centre for Energy, Senior Officials and relevant Ministerial meetings;

ƒƒdedicated series of webinars

ƒƒidentification of existing networks.

It is suggested that ASEAN Member States discuss and identify knowledge-sharing mechanisms and topics of interest. The Global CCS Institute is a preeminent CCS knowledge-sharing organisation, and manages a number of international CCS networks in partnership with the CCS community, for instance:

ƒƒEuropean CCS Demonstration Project Network, managed on behalf of the European Union

ƒƒInternational Test Centre Network, associated with Mongstad facility located in Norway

ƒƒJapanese Knowledge Sharing Network

ƒƒKorean Knowledge Sharing Network in partnership with the Korea CCS Association

ƒƒStakeholder Strategy Peer Support Network, for Australian-based projects

ƒƒJunior  Professionals CCS Network.

The Institute would be happy to facilitate a discussion on knowledge-sharing mechanisms and may – depending on the outcomes

– support these mechanisms.

REFERENCES

What is CCS?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Heleen de Coninck, Manuela Loos and Leo Meyer (Eds.), Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf, 2005

International Energy Agency (IEA), CO Emissions from Fuel Combustion, http://www.iea.org/media/statistics/CO highlights.pdf

2011

CCS Activities in ASEAN

Asian Development Bank, Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in Southeast Asia, http://www.adb.org/publications/ prospects-carbon-capture-and-storage-southeast-asia, September 2013

Clinton Climate Initiative, Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water, Global CCS Institute, Malaysia CCS Scoping Study, January 2011

SNL, Myanmar to tap carbon capture technology for new power plant, http://www2.snl.com/Interactivex/article. aspx?CdId=A-18760600-14124, accessed 2 September  2013

CO utilisation

Parson Brinckerhoff, Accelerating the Update of CCS: Industrial Use of Capture Carbon Dioxide, http://www.globalccsinstitute. com/publications/accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-captured-carbon-dioxide,   2011

CO Transport

CEM International, http://www.cem-int.com.au/fabrication/gas-storage-vessels/, [Photo of road tanker] accessed 5 September 2013

Environmental News Services, American Carbon Capture and Storage Industry Starts Capturing CO , http://ens-newswire. com/2011/06/22/american-carbon-capture-and-storage-industry-starts-capturing-co2/ http://ens-newswire.com/2011/06/22/ american-carbon-capture-and-storage-industry-starts-capturing-co2/ [Photo of pipelines from Denbury Resources], 2011, accessed 28 October 2013

Mark Halper, Nuclear down, CO  up in Japan, Germany,  http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/nuclear-down-

co2-up-in-japan-germany/13924, [Photo of ship from Shell], accessed 28 October 2013

Winnipeg Free Press, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/oil-boom-and-rail-risks-215350161.htmlSep 4 2013, [Photo of train] accessed 5 September 2013

DNV GL, CO RISKMAN Guidance on CCS CO Safety and Environment Major Accident Hazard Risk Management Level

2                 2

2 – Overview, http://www.dnv.com/industry/energy/segments/carbon_capture_storage/recommended_practice_guidelines/

co2riskman/, January 2013,

Storage

DNV GL, Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide http://www.dnv.com/industry/oil_gas/services_and_solutions/technical_advisory/ process_integrity/ccs_carbon_capture_storage/recommended_practices/,  April 2012

International Energy Agency (IEA), Carbon Capture and Storage Model Regulatory Framework, http://www.iea.org/publications/ freepublications/publication/model_framework.pdf,  November 2010

legal and Regulatory Framework  Developments

European Parliament, Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of carbon dioxide (EU Directive), http://eur-lex.europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0114:0135:EN:PDF, 23 April 2009

International Energy Agency (IEA), Carbon Capture and Storage Model Regulatory Framework, http://www.iea.org/publications/ freepublications/publication/model_framework.pdf,  November 2010

International Energy Agency (IEA), Carbon Capture and Storage Legal and Regulatory Review (Edition 2), http://www.iea.org/ topics/ccs/ccslegalandregulatoryissues/ieainternationalccsregulatorynetwork/, May 2011

AppENDIx I: lARGE-SCAlE pROjECTS IN ThE OpERATE AND CONSTRuCTION STAGE

AppENDIx II: ExISTING AND EmERGING uSES OF CO

Source: Parson Brinckerhoff, Accelerating the Update of CCS: Industrial Use of Capture Carbon Dioxide, http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/ accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-captured-carbon-dioxide,  2011,  pages 9-12