Ccs Workshop Report

Montana

Idaho Wyoming

Utah Colorado

Arizona NewMexico

Texas

Oklahoma

Kansas

Nebraska

South Dakota

NorthDakota

Arkansas

Louisiana

MississippiAlabama

LaBarge

McElmoDome

Ridgeway CO2Discovery

Sheep Mountain

BravoDome Ammonia

plant

JacksonDomeTerrell, Puckett

and Mitchellgas plants

Great Plainscoal gasificationplant

Climatechange2012

www.ipieca.org

An IPIECA Workshop:

Washington D.C., USA, 20–21 September 2011

Carbon captureand storageAddressing the remaining knowledge gaps

CCS Workshop Summary 2012.QXD_IPIECA 05/10/2012 17:02 Page a

The global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues

5th Floor, 209–215 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NL, United KingdomTelephone: +44 (0)20 7633 2388 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7633 2389E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ipieca.org

© IPIECA 2012 All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without theprior consent of IPIECA.

This publication is printed on paper manufactured from fibre obtained from sustainably grownsoftwood forests and bleached without any damage to the environment.

CCS Workshop Summary 2012.QXD_IPIECA 05/10/2012 17:02 Page b

Carbon capture and storageAddressing the remaining knowledge gaps

Photographs reproduced courtesy of the following: cover, top left: Øyvind Hagen/Statoil; top centre: Kjetil Alsvik/Statoil; top right: ExxonMobil; bottom left: Encana; page 4: Statoil; page 5 (left): Encana; page 5 (right): ExxonMobil; page 10: Statoil

CCS Workshop Summary 2012.QXD_IPIECA 05/10/2012 17:02 Page c

IPIECA

Contents

CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE: AN IPIECA WORKSHOP

Executive summary 1

Introduction 2

Oil and gas industry activity: research anddevelopment projects and perspectives 3

Statoil Mongstad project 4

Petrobras oxy-combustion pilot 4

Total’s integrated Lacq project 4

Encana—Apache EOR at Weyburn-Midale 5

ExxonMobil’s LaBarge project 5

Status of CCS, remaining gaps and barriers 6

CCS economics 6

Public acceptance 7

Regulatory and legal frameworks 7

Storage and contingency planning 8

What should demonstration projects provide? 11

Workshop programme 12

References 14

CCS Workshop Summary 2012.QXD_IPIECA 05/10/2012 17:02 Page d


1

Improved energy technologies will be needed ifthere are to be options for deep reductions ingreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the nexthalf-century, a period over which strong demandfor energy services is expected to continue. Thecapture of CO2 from large point sources, itscompression, transport via pipelines, and injectioninto deep aquifers, coal beds, or oil or gasreservoirs for long-term storage form one familyof technological options—known collectively as‘carbon capture and storage’ (CCS).

There are, however, significant cost barriers tothe implementation of CCS, particularly fromstationary combustion sources such as electricitygeneration from coal and natural gas. Eventhough widespread implementation of CCS is noteconomic today, many expect that by mid-century it will be more cost-effective than otheroptions for deep reductions in GHG emissions, ifdriven by policy that creates a uniform cost forGHG emissions.

The oil and gas industry has generated valuableunderstanding and experience in the capture,handling, transport and storage of CO2. Theindustry has developed tools and practices for theinjection and management of fluids in subsurfacestructures, and has decades of experience usingCO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)1. Currently,all large-scale integrated CCS projects involveeither the capture of CO2 emissions from naturalgas processing, and/or the storage of CO2 as aconsequence of its use for EOR.

The majority of the potential scope for the use ofCCS involves the capture of CO2 from power

production, but there has yet to be a large-scale(e.g. greater than 1 million tonnes CO2 per year)demonstration applied to this source.

For CCS to develop as a mitigation technology,the following implementation barriers need to beovercome: ● high CCS costs and increased energy

consumption;● integration of CCS technologies;● incorporating CCS into power distribution

systems;● CCS storage practices and standards;● regulatory and legal frameworks, including

treatment of long-term liability;● permitting requirements; and● public acceptance.

The portfolio of initiatives presented by bothgovernments and businesses to overcome thesebarriers has grown significantly over the pastdecade. Research and development (R&D) onlower-cost technologies for CO2 capture is onepriority. Technologies for monitoring CO2 storageis another key area. Oil and gas industryexperience and technologies are providing abasis to develop CCS practices including thosefor storage contingency planning.

The planning and demonstration of CCS systemsare providing information on CCS cost andtechnology integration. Perhaps moreimportantly, demonstrations will also provideearly experience with the practicality andeffectiveness of CCS regulatory and permittingsystems, and with public acceptance.

Executive summary

1 Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is a generic term for techniques for increasing the amount of crude oil that can be extracted from an oil field. Themost common techniques include gas injection, chemical injection and thermal recovery (e.g. steam flooding). CCS can provide a valuable sourceof CO2 for gas injection.

CCS Workshop Summary 2012.QXD_IPIECA 05/10/2012 17:02 Page 1

IPIECA

2

This report draws from the recent IPIECAworkshop, ‘Carbon capture and storage:Addressing the remaining knowledge gaps’,and summarizes the key observations made onthis topic. The event brought together expertsfrom industry, academia, government and non-governmental organizations (NGO)s toconsider the remaining gaps in knowledge andbarriers to CCS, which will help to informwhere future demonstration projects mightcontribute to advancing the technology. Thisreport and workshop extend IPIECA’s work onCCS, which includes a 2003 workshop andsummary report, and a roundtable on CCSbusiness models in 2007.

The Global CCS Institute estimates that thereare around 250 CCS-related projects aroundthe world, in various stages of development(conception, planning, execution or operation)and publishes an annual report on the status ofprojects. The majority of these are smallerprojects relating to the capture of powergeneration emissions, many of which are basedin Europe. There are approximately 75 large-scale integrated projects (LSIPs) at variousstages in total. Whilst the majority of them arestill in the planning stage, a number arealready in operation (see Table 1). More than10 Mt CO2 per annum are already beingcaptured and stored.

Introduction

Table 1 Large-scale, integrated CCS projects in operation

Algeria

Norway

Norway

United States(North Dakota)/Canada

United States (Oklahoma)

United States (Texas)

United States(Wyoming)

CO2 source Pipeline transport Storage

In Salah gas processing plant

Sleipner gas processing platform

Snøhvit LNG plant

Great Plains coal gasification plant

Enid fertilizer plant (0.7 Mt CO2/yr)

≥4 gas processing plants (>7 Mt CO2/yr and >35 Mt CO2/yr from natural sources)

LaBarge gas processing plant (7 Mt CO2/yr)

14 km onshore

Minimal

154 km offshore

330 km onshore

Onshore network

Permian basin onshore network

Onshore network

Saline formation (2004–, 1 Mt CO2/yr)

Offshore saline formation(1996–, 1 Mt CO2/yr)

Offshore saline formation(2007–, 0.7 Mt CO2/yr)

Weyburn-Midale EOR(2000–, 3 Mt CO2/yr)

EOR network

EOR network (includingSharon Ridge: 1999–;and many others)

EOR network (includingRangely, Colorado 1986–;Salt Creek, Wyoming: 2004–; and others)

Location

Sources: GCCSI (2011); Murrell, G. (2011); Melzer, L.S. (2007)



3

North America hosts the majority of large-scaleprojects and many of those involve enhancedoil recovery. EOR offers a way to recover costsand improve the viability of CCS projects,particularly in light of the increasing costestimates attached to many projects. EOR canbe seen as an important bridge to reduce costsand eventually allow other storage options tobecome viable.

Projects are already in operation at each stageof the capture-transport-storage chain, and a

number of projects have been storing CO2

safely underground for many years. Despitethis, there is still no large-scale integratedproject which captures the emissions frompower generation, transports them and thenstores them—the key use-case for CCS.

A combination of industry, academic, andgovernment-sponsored partnerships andorganizations, such as the Global CCS Instituteor CO2 Capture Project, are helping to addresssome of the outstanding issues with CCS.

Oil and gas industry activity: research anddevelopment, projects and perspectives

EOR can help to improve the economics of CCSprojects. The quantity of oil produced from EORglobally is projected to grow in the comingyears. The demand for CO2 for EOR has risenconsiderably, and additional growth in oilproduction from EOR is currently limited by thesupply of affordable CO2. Currently, more than40 Mt CO2/yr are injected for EOR in thePermian Basin in West Texas, mainly using CO2

from naturally occurring sources.

The oil and gas industry has decades of EORresearch and development and practicalexperience, with more than 120 projects inoperation today. There is also substantialexperience in storage and maintaining wellintegrity. EOR wells have many structuralbarriers and design considerations that preventleakage, including adjacent sealing rocks,

cement, CO2-resistant materials, precipitatesfrom brine (which capture CO2) and others.However, there are still a number of unresolvedquestions regarding monitoring andremediation: How far outside of the injectionzone do we need to monitor? What are thecosts associated with monitoring? What is theeffectiveness of 4-D imaging of CO2 porespace compared with traditional seismic andradar data?

The oil and gas industry has a number of CCSprojects in operation (with more indevelopment), which are helping to advancethe understanding of engineering, costs andenvironmental issues. IPIECA’s members areworking on a range of projects, from large-scale commercial projects to pilot plant trials—some examples are provided below.


IPIECA

4

Statoil Mongstad project

This project, known as ‘CO2 Capture Mongstad’(CCM), seeks to capture exhaust gases from aresidue catalytic cracker (RCC) and natural gascombined heat and power (CHP) plant. Theproject has two main components, namely atechnology centre—Technology CenterMongstad (TCM)—and a CO2 capture project.The TCM is developing gas- and coal-firedpower plant technologies for the full-scaleproject. A decision on the size and type of thefull-scale CCM facility will be taken around2016. At full capacity, emissions from the CHPplant are expected to be around 1.3 milliontonnes of CO2 per annum.

Lessons learned: escalating costs; the need forcloser study of amine-based technology.

Petrobras oxy-combustion pilot

Fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) is one of the mainsources of CO2 emissions in the oil refiningindustry, representing up to 20–30% of totalemissions from a typical refinery. Petrobras andthe CO2 Capture Project are trialling an oxy-combustion retrofit on an FCC unit at aPetrobras facility in Paraná state, Brazil. Theflue gas from a normal air-fired FCCregenerator has a CO2 concentration ofapproximately 15–20%. In the Paraná pilotfacility, the flue gas is enriched with additionalCO2 to a concentration of about 85% CO2 byfiring the FCC regenerator with a mixture ofoxygen and recycled CO2-rich flue gas insteadof air. Although not part of the pilot project, thesubsequent removal of water vapour and airpollutants would result in a nearly-pure CO2

stream, with the benefit that this could then be

sent directly to storage without the need for acostly post-combustion CO2 capture system.

Lessons learned: Close monitoring required atcertain stages; corrosion is an issue; but thetechnical viability of the oxy-combustion retrofitwas demonstrated.

Total’s integrated Lacq project

Located in Lacq, France, Total is testing oxyfuel-combustion using a retrofitted 30 MW boiler,with the CO2 transported 27 km and stored in adepleted gas reservoir. The project aims to provethe technical feasibility of an integrated CO2

capture and injection operation. So far, therehave been good results from both the captureand storage processes. Only minor modificationsto compressors at the transport stage have beennecessary to ensure a smooth operation. Therehas also been a strong focus on communityengagement, attempting to build support for thescheme, and understand public concerns.

Lessons learned: how to avoid corrosion; publicacceptance involves a continuous process ofcommunication.

Statoil’s Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM)



5

Encana—Apache EOR at Weyburn-Midale

This is a commercial CO2 EOR project,spanning 270 km from the industrial source ofthe CO2 in North Dakota, USA to the Weyburnfield in Saskatchewan Canada. A researchproject by Petroleum Technology ResearchCentre (PTRC) was created to investigate andmonitor the injected CO2 underground. Theproject is monitored using 4-D seismictechniques. PTRC is writing a best practicemanual that is scheduled for release in 2012.One of the most important lessons learned fromthis project was the importance of earlycommunity engagement using evidence anddata to assuage the community’s fears ofleakage into the water and atmosphere.

Lessons learned: extensive data set required inrelation to CO2 storage in a depleted oil field;one of the biggest barriers to a CCS project ispublic opinion.

ExxonMobil’s LaBarge project

The Shute Creek Treating Facility treatsproduced natural gas from the LaBarge field inthe USA, and separates CO2, methane andhelium streams for sale. The facility has thecapacity to provide 7 million tonnes per year ofCO2 for EOR. In addition, controlled freezezone (CFZ) technology is being demonstratedalongside this operation and allows separationof CO2 and other gas contaminants from a gasstream without the use of solvents or absorbents.

Lessons learned: Successful commercialdemonstration of CFZ would enable thedevelopment of increasingly sour gas resourcesaround the world by substantially reducing gastreatment costs.

ExxonMobil’s Shute Creek Treating Facility inWyoming

Great Plains Coal Gasification plant, the source ofCO2 for Weyburn-Midale


CO

2 em

issi

ons

pric

e ($

/ton

ne C

O2)

natural gas price ($/million BTU)

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

14 16 18

Kheshgi et al., 2010

Simbeck, 2011

NETL, 2011Gas CCGT-CCS

Gas CCGT

Supercriticalcoal-CCS

Supercritical coal

IPIECA

6

Whilst some of the technologies used for carboncapture, transport and storage are proven, thereremain significant gaps in experience with theintegration of CCS technologies and theirapplication to combustion sources, along withother barriers including public acceptance,regulatory frameworks and the economics of CCS.These barriers currently prevent the widespreaddeployment of large-scale CCS projects,particularly concerning power generation.

CCS economics

The economics, both of upfront capitalinvestment and also of the operational returnson investment, remain a key barrier to CCSdevelopment. Recent front-end engineering anddesign (FEED) studies have shown increasedcosts compared with previous assumptions. Theaddition of a full-scale CCS unit on a powerplant is estimated to double the capital costs,

Status of CCS, remaining gaps and barriers

Each of the four technologies is economically favoured over a range of natural gas and CO2 prices: 1) Gas CCGT provides the lowest LCOE where natural gas and CO2 prices are low (least cost in lower left zone).2) Supercritical coal provides the lowest LCOE where natural gas price is high and CO2 price is low (least cost

in lower right zone).3) Gas CCGT with CCS provides the lowest LCOE where natural gas price is low and CO2 price is high (least

cost in upper left zone).4) Supercritical coal with CCS provides the lowest LCOE where natural gas and CO2 prices are high (least cost

in upper right zone).The figure compares the results of three studies of CCS costs with different cost basis assumptions (e.g. capitalcharges) resulting in different annualized costs for the four technology options.Source: John Litynski’s presentation; Dale Simbeck’s presentation; Kheshgi et al. (2010).

Figure 1 The range of natural gas and CO2 prices over which four baseload electricity generation technologiesfor new generation plants result in the lowest levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)



7

whilst its use imposes an energy penalty ofapproximately 20% on the fuel used in powergeneration. The financial gap betweenincentives to apply CCS and the higherestimated cost of doing so has widened, andhas led to the cancellation of a number ofdemonstration projects. In the absence of aviable business model for the primaryapplication of CCS on power plants using asaline aquifer for storage, only R&D projectsare currently being commissioned. The priorityfocus is on lower-cost technologies for CO2

capture, and improved technologies willcontribute to closing the financial gap.

Figure 1 shows estimates of the carbon price atwhich CCS projects (for coal or natural gas)become economically competitive, and also thenatural gas price at which coal or gas iseconomically favoured. Addressing this gap isa prerequisite to the commercial application ofCCS, and this may be 15–20 years away. Inthe USA, with a decline in natural gas priceand the lack of a reliable price on carbon,combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) arecurrently the economic choice.

Public acceptance

As with similar large-scale infrastructureprojects, the public remain sceptical andconcerned about the siting of CCS in theircommunity. Moreover, governments and projectdevelopers are viewed with low levels of trustby stakeholders, compared to academics andNGOs. Thus, developers need to build trustwith local communities, possibly through aseries of engagement and education exercises

to raise awareness. Some R&D projects haveindicated successes with this approach.

Concerns include the cost, safety, risk ofleakage, driving away tourism and localpopulations, the effect on specific localindustries along with a belief that industrymight benefit at the expense of individuals. Anumber of other complex issues which canhamper efforts to raise public approval includeconcerns about the planning process,perceived previous injustices, proximity of thecapture versus storage sites, andunderstanding the need for climate changemitigation. Public acceptance remains a keybarrier to future projects.

Regulatory and legal frameworks

Regulatory and legal frameworks are needed tofacilitate a smooth permitting and complianceprocess for the implementation of CCS projects.Regulatory environments are slowly beingdeveloped around the world. The novel anduntried nature of the new legislation is activelyplacing barriers before CCS projects. Forexample, one area already creating problemsis the multitude of permitting requirement forCCS projects.


CO2 flowing to ~7,000injection wells in the USA

Montana

Idaho Wyoming

Utah Colorado

Arizona NewMexico

Texas

Oklahoma

Kansas

Nebraska

South Dakota

NorthDakota

Arkansas

Louisiana

MississippiAlabama

LaBarge

McElmoDome

Ridgeway CO2Discovery

Sheep Mountain

BravoDome Ammonia

plant

JacksonDomeTerrell, Puckett

and Mitchellgas plants

Great Plainscoal gasificationplant

IPIECA

8

More than 37 years of experience is helping toreduce the associated risks of CCS. Much ofthis experience comes from oil and gasprojects for enhanced oil recovery, withthousands of wells, a large pipelineinfrastructure (Figure 2) and more than 40 Mtof CO2 stored safely every year. Moreover, thebroader application of geologic storage ofcarbon dioxide will lead to improved storagepractices. Research indicates that there is morethan enough capacity to meet demand for thestorage of CO2 associated with powergeneration through to 2100.

There is a strong body of research andexperience relating to CO2 storage, concernsover the availability of suitable locations, andthe permanence of CO2 stored within thoselocations. Yet, further work is required andpublic perception continues to play a key role.Various stakeholders are conducting researchand studies into both the siting of storagelocations and contingency planning, which arehelping to increase understanding. Alongsideexperience and research, risk management playsa key role in mitigating the potential for leakageand associated impacts. The World Resources

Storage and contingency planning

Figure 2 CO2 pipeline infrastructure connecting natural and captured sources of CO2 to injection wells forCO2 EOR.

Sour

ce: R

onal

d Sw

eatm

an’s

pres

enta

tion



9

Institute and Det Norsk Veritas, amongst others,have developed CCS guidelines to ensure thesafety and effectiveness of CCS projects.

The first priority of any risk managementscheme for long-term storage of CO2 should beto encourage good site selection andoperational practices that reduce theprobability of future problems. The appropriateclassification of storage facilities is important,though saline aquifers are less well understoodand more challenging than depleted reservoirs.

Further work is needed to standardize aframework and terminology for classification.The storage risks are greatest during activeinjection because this is when the pressure inthe structure is at its highest. Following this, thepressure drops over time as a variety oftrapping mechanisms come into play (structural,residual, soluble, mineral). The US NationalEnergy Technology laboratory (NETL) isadvancing CCS through US RegionalPartnerships which are carrying out acomprehensive test programme (Figure 3).

Sour

ce: T

raci

Rod

osta

’s pr

esen

tatio

n

Figure 3 CO2 storage projects in the USA under the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships programme


IPIECA

10

Despite increasing confidence in CO2 storage,there is now a greater focus on contingencyplanning. Leaks might occur from: the injectionwell; a nearby well; a fracture or faultoccurring in the cap rock; or the storagereservoir (dissolution into groundwater, etc.).Key areas for consideration include emergencymanagement, leakage containment, leakagecleanup, and hazard mitigation. If a leak wereto occur, remediation—the clean-up of theescaped CO2 and the mitigation of impacts—could be costly. Whilst some leakage pathways

are easy to remedy (wells) others are lessunderstood (groundwater, ecosystem impacts).More work is needed to be fully prepared tomanage any unforeseen events quickly andcost-effectively.

The oil and gas industry has a body ofknowledge on CO2 storage which shows thatsubsurface monitoring of key parameters isessential, as shown in the example from InSalah (see below). Further work on the impactof CO2 injection on rock properties is required.

• In Salah Gas (ISG) is a joint venture between BP, Sonatrach and Statoil.

• The gas fields have CO2 concentrations of 1–10%

• ISG made a discretionary investment in CO2 capture, compression and injection facilities.

• Injection started in 2004 and since then, more than 3 Mt of CO2 have been injected.

• CO2 injection via three long-reach horizontal wells, in the aquifer leg.

• ISG has an extensive monitoring portfolio.

The In Salah CO2 project, Algeria

Sour

ce: P

hilip

Rin

gros

e’s

pres

enta

tion



11

Current climate policy around the world is notyet sufficient to support the widespreaddeployment CCS. In the interim, CCSdemonstration projects could address some keyknowledge gaps. With limited and unsustainedfinancial support for such projects, attention hasshifted towards using captured CO2 for EOR asa means of recouping costs within a knownregulatory framework.

A number of gaps and barriers that might beaddressed through demonstration projects,include:● Application of CCS to large-scale power

generation: this remains untested at scale.Considerations which need to be addressedinclude: integration into existing plants; CO2

purity specification; integration of capture,transport and storage systems; matchingCO2 demand requirements for EOR withsupply of CO2 from power generationsources; and storage in saline aquifers.

● Public acceptance and support of CCSapplied to power generation: this may forma critical implementation barrier. The firstcouple of full-scale CCS demonstrationplants for power generation will be criticalin determining public perceptions. Hence,they need to be transparent and carefullydesigned, involving the surroundingcommunities from an early stage.

● Storage contingency planning is animportant part of a risk-managementstrategy: it is better to review risk early onand prepare contingency plans, includingestimating the cost of intervention. Fieldexperiments should be carried out over anumber of years to demonstrate leakdetection, intervention and remediation.

What should demonstration projects provide?


Workshop programme

IPIECA

12

● Introduction and welcome

Chair: Terry Killian, Marathon

● Session 1: Overviews of carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiatives

Session Chair: Wishart Robson, Nexen

• Research and development including government initiatives (Howard Herzog, MIT)

• Status of CCS and large-scale projects (Jack Parkes, Global CCS Institute)

• Discussion

● Session 2: Oil and gas industry activity: research and development,projects and perspectives

Session Chairs: Haroon Kheshgi, ExxonMobil; Trude Sundset, Statoil

• Enhanced oil recovery/API study (Ron Sweatman, Halliburton)

• Case study 1: Mongstad update (Trude Sundset, Statoil)

• Case study 2: Oxy-combustion FCC pilot (Rodrigo Gobbo, Petrobras)

• Case study 3: Lacq Project (Dominique Copin, Total)

• Case study 4: Weyburn (Malcolm Wilson, Petroleum Technology Research Centre)

• Case study 5: LaBarge (Bob Bailes, ExxonMobil)

• Panel discussion

● Session 3: Status of CCS, remaining gaps and barriers

Session Chair: Alan Burns, Hess

• Technology: cost, readiness and safety (John Litynski, National Energy Technology Laboratory)

• Public acceptability (David Reiner, Cambridge University)

• Current and upcoming regulations (Kipp Coddington, M2C2 law)

• Proposals for regulatory frameworks (Sean McCoy, IEA CCS)

• Canadian-US proposals for international CCS standards (Jeff Walker, CSA)

• Respondents (Dale Simbeck, SFA Pacific; Arnold Feldman, ASME)

• Discussion



13

● Session 4: Storage and contingency planning

Session Chair: Steve Crookshank, API

• Storage capacity, including Department of Energy regional partnerships (Traci Rodosta, NETL)

• Leakage mitigation strategies (Sally Benson, Stanford)

• Storage and monitoring as a public acceptance issue (Sarah Forbes, WRI)

• Experiences in managing CO2 storage projects (Philip Ringrose, Statoil)

• Response (Jim Dooley, Joint Global Change Research Institute)

● Session 5: Demonstrations—needs and information

• Panel discussion (Richard Rhudy, EPRI; Jack Parkes, GCCSI; John Litynski, NETL;Sally Benson, Stanford; Howard Herzog, MIT; and Scott Imbus, Chevron

All presentations are available from the workshop webpage:

www.ipieca.org/event/20110506/addressing-remaining-gaps-knowledge-ccs


IPIECA

14

References

Kheshgi et al. (2010). Perspectives on CCS Cost and Economics. SPE Economics and Managementpaper SPEW-139716-PA.

GCCSI (2011). The Global Status of CCS: 2011. Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute,Canberra, Australia, October 2011.

Murrell, G. (2011). Wyoming CO2 Market Status and Developments. Presentation to the 5thAnnual Wyoming CO2 Conference, 14 July 2011.

Melzer, L.S. (2007). The History and Development of CO2 EOR in the Permian Basin with anEmphasis on Pipelines. Presentation at the Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute’s JointProducers Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, 26 June 2007.



IPIECA is the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues. Itdevelops, shares and promotes good practices and knowledge to help the industry improve itsenvironmental and social performance, and is the industry’s principal channel of communicationwith the United Nations.

Through its member-led working groups and executive leadership, IPIECA brings together thecollective expertise of oil and gas companies and associations. Its unique position within theindustry enables its members to respond effectively to key environmental and social issues.

Company members

Addax Petroleum

BG Group

BP

Chevron

CNOOC

ConocoPhillips

eni

ExxonMobil

Hess

Hunt Oil

Husky Energy

KPC

Madagascar Oil

Mærsk

Marathon

Nexen

Noble Energy

NOC Libya

Occidental

OMV

Petrobras

Petronas

Petrotrin

PTT EP

Qatargas

RasGas

Repsol

Saudi Aramco

Shell

SNH

Statoil

Talisman

Total

Tullow Oil

Woodside Energy

African Refiners Association (ARA)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

Australian Institute of Petroleum (AIP)

Australian Petroleum Production & ExplorationAssociation Ltd (APPEA)

Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute (IBP)

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)

Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI)

European Petroleum Industry Association (EUROPIA)

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP)

Japan Petroleum Energy Centre (JPEC)

Petroleum Association of Japan (PAJ)

Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companiesin Latin America and the Caribbean (ARPEL)

South African Petroleum Industry Association (SAPIA)

The Oil Companies’ European Association forEnvironment, Health and Safety in Refining andDistribution (CONCAWE)

United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA)

World Petroleum Council (WPC)

Association members

IPIECA5th Floor, 209–215 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NL, United KingdomTelephone: +44 (0)20 7633 2388 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7633 2389E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ipieca.org

© IPIECA 2012 All rights reserved. www.ipieca.org


Documents

Ccs Workshop Report