technical

Development of a common CCS infrastructure in the UK

By James Watt, Technical Manager, CCS, AMEC, Darlington, UK The future deployment of CCS transport infrastructure is likely to be via common carrier networks rather than multiple singe point to point solutions. This article discusses some of the issues around development of common infrastructure. The results from a number of studies in the UK are presented, including Teesside, Humber, Scotland, and the Mersey and Dee clusters, as well as considerations for the East, South West, and South East of the UK. Discussed are the common issues to all developments, critical assumptions, development of cluster scenarios, screening of emitters, modelling and costing of pipeline networks and compression, and some of the other challenges facing implementation in the UK. In particular, the results from a study on Teesside will be used to illustrate the issues and costs facing some emitters, the impact and potential of shipping, the failure to develop CCS projects and realities facing network development.

UK common infrastructure studies

There are a number of common infrastructure studies of global significance as highlighted by the GCCSI [1]. 14 storage-only projects were identified and 17 associated with enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Four of the storage-only common infrastructure projects are in the UK, more than any other nation. The four identified are Thames [2], Humber [3], Scotland [4], and Teesside [5], but further common infrastructure studies have been completed. All are at various levels of detail from simple studies to the most advanced in the Humber, which is at pre-front-end

engineering and design (FEED) level. What they show is a high potential for common infrastructure in the UK. These four regions are joined by the Mersey and Dee basin which was first studied in 2006 [6], while other studies have consider the North West [7], and Greater South East [8] (Thames estuary, south eastern counties, London and southern counties) looking at the potential of clusters. Overall, the geography and density of emitters if the UK promotes the formation of common infrastructure. The studies conducted have also led to the resolution of key considerations for future developments:

Figure 1: Humber regional high level network options.

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical
Cement Ceramics 2% 0% Services 0%

Downstream Gas Food and 2% Drink 1% Glass 1%

Chemicals 5%

Offshore 48%

Power 33%

Other 0%

Pulp & Paper 1%

Refineries 7%

Figure 3: Scotland: emitters by sector. large scale. Other reports are more practical in definition looking at smaller areas or specific onshore developments, these latter studies consider the issues at more detail. The areas that may be considered clusters vary, no clear technical definition is yet proposed. How definition of a cluster occurs can be looked at in a number of ways: Committed anchor projects numerous projects with CCS ambitions Density of emissions Regional policy Proximity of emitters High potential of accessible storage volumes. Groups or single projects that can act as a solid base for scenario definitions can also enable infrastructure clusters. These anchor projects are generally first movers with capture, storage, or EOR ambitions. For example the desire to utilise the Hewitt formation [10] as a storage site with an operator willing to support CCS development should enable and encourage emitters with CCS plans to utilise that facility and locate accordingly, such as in the East of England. Similarly the East Irish Sea [11] has significant storage potential and could enable CCS on the UKs east coast. The Longannet project in Scotland, Don Valley IGCC project in Humber, and Progressive Energys Eston Grange project in Teesside all provide the same focus from which scenarios can be derived. The critical elements remain; where do you store and which emitters will deploy capture in the future.

Figure 2: Emitter screening factors. Who is included in the study emitters types, size, industry sector, geography Cluster definitions geography, emission density, policy driven Scenario developments Timelines for roll-out Storage and capture issues and options need to be considered Flexibility requirements of network Comparison methods for optimisation Consideration of anchor projects Right sizing for future development Compression/pumping strategy and costs Environmental and social impacts/considerations Influence of shipping.

Definition of potential common infrastructure

The most important considerations are for the development of clusters are the selection for storage sites and the inclusion of emitters. Location of potential storage sites and emitters dictates the practical shape of pipeline systems. There are a number of studies in this area varying in detail. Currently common are GIS enabled source/sink matching and optimisation which match sources to sinks under a timeline scenario [9]. These studies show time based progression of potential infrastructure, generally on a

Influence of storage location

The location and development of storage sites is potentially the first area that must be looked at when considering common infrastructure studies. The storage sites availability provides two key factors: how much can be stored, and where. Other factors included the type of storage site, the timeline through which it may be made available, and the potential re-use of existing infrastructure. The location and the development of storage over time sets the shape of the infrastructure, whereas the volumes over time define part of the systems capacity and pressure

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical

Figure 4: Compressor configuration options. profiles. The type of storage also causes issues regarding pressure and flow: for example, a low-pressure reservoir on a common network will require de-pressuring, while some stores may need additional pressure. An optimum design approach needs to be considered for future plans, balanced against the risk of early investment in large systems. A simple example is the decisions taken in the Humber studies. Here the options for a common pipeline system drive the overall shape. Early discussions on the potential storage options see the Humber connect to the Southern North Sea targeting depleted hydrocarbon fields (DHF) and potential deep saline formations (DSF). This was over the potential of the central North Sea formations or EOR. Picking a southern target orientates the pipeline route south of Hull, while a northern target, central North Sea, would drive a pipeline route north of Hull. This changes the shape and inevitable operation of a network. The purpose is to enable as many emitters as possible and, as shown in Figure 1, orientation north and south has distinct differences. The southern routeing is an optimal routeing where the network falls to a single pipeline along a common route, minimising the number of stranded assets. The northern route requires a major river crossing to enable the facilities on the south bank of the Humber, but essentially the network is much more branched, connecting to a common pipeline just prior to going offshore. The influence of storage site location can be clearly seen. a modelling tool for common infrastructure, considers the region as a test example. The infrastructure here considered the use of high- and medium-pressure pipelines, with lowpressure pipelines transporting CO2 gas in standard polyethylene pipelines for low-flow, small, emitters. The cost of a network varies with the size of emitters and, as the emitters join an optimised network, there is a marked increase in the marginal network costs for emitters. This led to the introduction of tiers 0, 1, and 2, a coarse way of indicating the size of an emitter and screening them. The early study clearly showed marginal costs for small emitters, <50,000 tonnes per annum, in excess of three times that of large emitters. Therefore the investment to accommodate small emitters is, by comparison, much higher than for large emitters. The cost of connection is one element, but the geographical location, flexibility, and gas quality are also issues raised by emitters. The emitters that are then included in a cluster is not simply dependent on size. To consider the issues screening the emitters that are included, as well as ensuring accurate data are used, forms part of a simple methodology upon which to evaluate emitters. The following keys points are some of the key high level screening points developed from successive infrastructure studies (Figure 2): Definition of common infrastructure boundaries Complete emitter profile Emitter data gathering Future emitters and data estimation Emitter type Size classification Plot availability Site access Storage access Age.

Influence of emitters
Emitters are the other major driver; their size, type, deployment timeline, and location all have influenced infrastructure plans. The optimum network considers all the emitters in a cluster, but has to impose screening to ensure that the scenario is sound. The influence of size was first explored in the study of the Mersey and Dee basin [6] in North West UK. This study, providing

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical

Figure 5: Compressor-only configuration.

Figure 6: Compressor and pump configuration. The completion of the emitters profile for a cluster is a simple survey of the current and future emitters. Current emitter data can be located from government databases and from various international databases or generated from generic emissions/ capacity metrics. Future emitters need to be considered so that any common infrastructure is of the right size to accommodate them. In addition there is the possibility that an installed common infrastructure may attract CCS-enabled projects to a region. Early studies considered only installed emitters, but later studies have considered potential emitters to enable right sizing to occur. Emitter type is considered as the first screening mechanism. The most common screening is emitters that are offshore: whilst the technology exists to capture the CO2 emitted from gas processing or power generation offshore it is viewed as a medium-, if not long-term, target. In Scotland, when considering a single infrastructure model, 48 per cent of the emissions for that region are from offshore facilities (Figure 3). Other emitter types may not be suitable for capture, although further study of this is required. For some emitters, particularly the smaller emitters, an evaluation has to be made as to whether a facility can host a capture plant or would be suitable to do so. The most common screen applied in studies should be size. Size classification typically uses three tiers splitting emitters into large, medium, and small. The classification is based on marginal connection costs, typically on onshore pipeline costs. In the recent Teesside study the small emitters marginal cost, in terms of overnight CAPEX, was 73/tonne, medium emitters 22/tonne, and for the large emitters 8/tonne. The impact of adding medium emitters reduces the overall costs slightly, and further adding the small emitters increases the cost. Similar results were expressed in the Mersey and Dee. The inclusion of small emitters <50,000 tonnes per annum is typically screened out of studies as, whilst the marginal cost of connection is large, the impact on overall CAPEX is marginal. The plot required for a carbon-capture plant, compressor, and pipeline installation is significant and varies considerably on the technology involved and the operational requirements. It is not possible to say with certainty that an installation requires a pre-specified amount of plot space, as with layout the economies of scaling-up are more pronounced. The IEA [12] reported that for a 785 MWe CCGT a post-combustion plant footprint would be equivalent to a single area of 250 x 150 m, and this is suggested by DECC as the relevant metric for carbon-capture-ready (CCR) determination. As a metric, this equates to 0.01875 sq m/teCO2. This is highly dependent on the technology type, but should emitters not have the plot space on or adjacent to the existing facility, inclusion in common infrastructure is unlikely to occur. Access to any site must also be evaluated for the pipeline given consideration of its size and likely separation distance. The DECC guidance on CCR [13] requires that a preferred route in a 1 km wide corridor for the first 10 km from an emitter is provided, with

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical

Figure 7: Deployment to storage scenario. all obstructions identified. Guidance in the UK at least is explicit: any CO2 pipeline is to be considered as conveying a dangerous substance, and this ensures that the most stringent rules are applied. Issues around the impact of CO2 pipeline dispersion modelling and consequence analysis need to be resolved to enable more-accurate routeing studies to be made. As guidance, the minimum requirements of an appropriate standard such as BS PD 8010:1 should be applied. The band of interest for a pipeline then allows access to be assessed. Where a pipeline cannot gain access to a site, alternatives should be considered; intermediate transmission as a gas may be applicable for short distances through crowded areas, for example. However some sites are not accessible by pipeline due to the urban density, site congestion, or environmental constraints. These sites can then be excluded from a cluster, or placed later into the deployment scenario. The requirement for access to storage is fundamental and, in considering a common infrastructure, should have already been considered. For individual sites, the factor informs screening capture technology or economic studies. In a recent assessment of the potential for capture technology roll-out to gas-fired generators, this element was used to screen remote sites, where storage access is remote, before consideration for inclusion into a pipeline system. In the UK it is rare that an installation does not have access, however expensive, but for facilities deep inland with only offshore storage it becomes an economic determination between the cost of pipeline and storage, simple release to atmosphere, plant technology change, or closure. The age of an emitter also informs the design of common infrastructure. The simple question is whether the plant is viable to receive carbon capture or will be continuing long enough to warrant it. One of the critical assumptions that have to be made about future projects also relates to existing emitters and their end-of-service date. For the most part the consideration has to be given that existing emitters will continue, if not as-installed then replaced in the future. There is a benefit from re-planting existing sites and as such common infrastructure would enable current and future plant. But there will be scenarios where over the lifetime of a network plants will close. The reasoning is complex economically and socially, but an assessment should be made. The loss of a plant can have a considerable effect on an infrastructure in term both CAPEX and OPEX.

Scenario development
Screened emitters then form the basis of the design of a scenario for deployment. Whilst this may evolve during the design of infrastructure, it is beneficial to define a baseline at an early stage. In addition, the baseline should include development of storage sites. Development of clusters is highly dependent on timing, both for emitters and storage. For storage, the timing of availability drives the offshore development as well as the

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical

Figure 8: Comparative cost for Tees Valley infrastructure options: (a top) full-scale: note high marginal costs for 11c and 12; (b bottom) expanded scale for network options.

10

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical
Study The Economics of CO2 Transport by Pipeline and Storage in Saline Aquifers and Oil Reservoirs, DoE, USA, 2004 Cost Metric/Formula C = 8.35P + 0.49 $8,346 per kW P =Power, MW 2004 Year

Techno-Economic Models for Carbon Dioxide Compression, Transport, and Storage, McCollum et al, University of California, 2005

2005

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants DOE/NETL-2007/1281 Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity Final Report (Original Issue Date, May 2007) Revision 1, August 2007

$24,860,000, 183 tonnes/hour, NGCC, 136$/kg/h $46,363,000, 312 tonnes/hour, s/c CF, 148 $/kg/h $49,059,000, 628 tonnes/hour, sub/c CF, 78 $/kg/h 2006

Table 1: Compressor/pump cost models. expectations of use. Some depleted gas fields may not be suitable for CCS or may be more suitable as commercial gas storage sites. Offshore infrastructure age is also a consideration, as is the lag time from depleted hydrocarbon field (DHF) closure to uptake of CCS. Idle facilities incur ongoing costs when not in production. Determination of storage availability therefore shapes offshore common infrastructure in terms of location and pipeline-operating parameters. For example, consider three storage sites two DHFs and one deep saline formation (DSF). If the first store online is a small DHF in 2015, typically used for a demonstration plant, Figure 7. The first pipeline will run to that field. In 2020 a nearby DHF storage site opens for CCS and further along a DSF opens in 2025. Enabling these from the existing 2015 pipeline requires the installation to be expandable and the initial pipeline to be right-sized, in order to accommodate future demand. Optimisation needs to be considered and also reliability and risks to common infrastructure. Overall, more or higher-capacity pipelines need to be installed to accommodate 2017 and 2025. By considering the whole scenario, the initial investment may be higher but beneficial in the future, This kind of cost benefit, along with realistic costs of roll-out and offshore options, is yet to be fully considered, particularly examining the needs for offshore installations, compression and pumping, and other common facilities. For emitters timing, size, and type are the critical scenario factors. When considering type this relates to entry specification of the gas as well as the type factors used in screening, and care has to be taken to ensure that new entrants to common infrastructure do not push the content out of the design conditions. To protect against this, the infrastructure owner will need to tightly control entry specifications. A typical entry specification is commonly applied: one derived from the Dynamis [14] recommendations includes the ranges from most processes. There remain issues to address with the specification predominantly the water content requirements still need to be examined to avoid potential corrosion. Costs to emitters are typically ignored during current studies, but they do influence deployment scenarios. The ability of an emitter to enable CCS is dependent on cost, both of the emission and the technology. For medium to small emitters, or even non-power generation large emitters, capture technology and high-pressure compression may at current costs prove economically unviable. This consideration is policy driven as policy is driving deployment rates, particularly the demonstrator projects which are heavily publicly funded. As experience at scale, or with lower-cost new technologies, cost will decrease and deployment will accelerate. In reality, medium and small emitters are usually shown to lag large-scale emitters, a lag also dependent on emitter sector in terms of deployment timescale. Slow starts to common infrastructure with significant lead times requires early periods where initial investment is not being recovered at low utilisation of pipelines. The other effect is that investments may become delayed or negated by policy, deleting future projects from network scenarios.

Pipeline, compression and pumping considerations and cost models

The costs associated with compression or pumping are not easily derived, and there are a number of suggested models (Table 1). Common compressor systems in natural gas transmission are the natural correlation; however the format of the compression stage is variable, Figure 4. Unlike natural gas, change of phase is expected to be required from gas to densephase liquid and is not easily constructed. Direct correlation with natural gas transmission compressors is not readily possible as CO2 compressors require ancillary cooling systems to achieve the phase change and inter-stage cooling is typically required to improve efficiency, Figure 5. The additional option of pumps in series with the compression step also deviates from the natural gas model, Figure 6, in which a compressor and cooler arrangement can be used to produce medium pressures and liquid carbon dioxide which can then be pumped.

11

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical
Component CO2 N2/Ar 0.01 O2 0.030.06% 4.1% <4% Post Combustion IGCC Oxyfuel Weyburn >95% <4% (for noncondensable gases) <4% EOR 1001000ppm Saline Formation <4% EOR <2% <4% for all noncondensable gases and Hydrocarbons Dynamis >95%

Hydrocarbons

0.01%

<5%

H2 H 2O H2S CO Hg SOx NOx Glycol

0 0 0 0 0 <0.01%, <100ppm <0.01%, <100ppm

0.82%

0 <100ppm <500ppm <200ppmv <2000ppmv

0.010.6% 0.030.4% <0.01%, <100ppm <0.01%, <100ppm

0 0

<1450ppmv

0.5% 0.01%

<100 ppm <100 ppm

Table 2. Examples of carbon dioxide stream composition. Of course some studies only consider the pipeline cost or the pressurisation to network pressure, and this ignores the initial compression stage post capture. With limited experience in the field, and the demonstration projects at scale yet to come on line, the actual costs are unknown. Analysis from results of completed scale engineering studies, with vendor cost information show a marked differential. The expectation is that from Table 1, Equn 1 produces high estimates, whilst Equns 2 and 3 typically show 100 per cent low yields, against costs generated by vendors and detailed engineering studies; for systems in the range 15 MMt/a transported. Critically it becomes important to define where in any study the compression stage lies. Whilst not currently addressed, consideration needs to be given to the fact that heat recovery from the coolers may be beneficial. In common infrastructure, the flexibility of the systems also becomes a major driver, and again more work is needed to examine the issues of flexibility and utilisation. Pipeline costs themselves can be transposed from existing data; however, the costs associated with above-ground installations, block valves, and metering remain to be confirmed. Repeatedly, through different economic analyses, UK clusters have indicated a 23 times cost saving for networks, although this is higher in Scotland with its lower CO2 density/sq km in the study area when compared to Humber and Tees. was tested against other scenarios, three of which were the failure of predicted projects to arrive. Figure 8 summarises the results from the 14 scenarios comparing the minimum cost in each offshore deployment scenario to the others giving an indication of the cost variances. The costs here are shown as indicative overnight costs with no time weighting or economic assessment. The striking scenarios are those that show the differential between single emitter to storage solutions (scenario 11). Large emitters 11a, 11b, and 11d clearly show the 23 factor multiple between these costs and those of a network. In scenario 11c a medium-sized power plant the cost is significantly higher at 40115 times, depending on scenario (offshore pipeline distance) so the benefit of a network is considerable. Scenario 12 also shows the marginal connection cost for a remote emitter, and the cost of connecting to the existing network. That this pipeline costs at 12 times that of a network pipeline illustrates the additional factors that affect remote assets, typical to cement, forestry-associated biomass, ceramics, or potash processing plants. This marginal connection cost also affects emitters spread over large geographic areas. What is clear is the trend that greater volumes through the system reduce the lifecycle cost per tonne transported. The Teesside study also considers the addition of a large remote source (scenario 13) and the influence of ship-based imports (scenario 14) on cost. In the case of scenario 13, the remote emitter contributed a further 5 MMt/a to the offshore carrier pipeline, reducing the costs to the network. The additional volume outweighs the cost of the additional pipeline and connection. Similarly the addition of shipping to a network showed a

Common infrastructure for the Tees Valley

The recent study on Teesside considered scenarios where a network was created for transport in the region and into a single common carrier pipeline in the North Sea. The overall scenario

12

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical

Figure 9. Example deployment of common infrastructure in the UK to 2050. benefit, depending on how the cost of the associated terminal was assigned. The volume imported reduces the cost, but could also add valuable buffer storage to a network. If the cost of the terminal facility is shared by networked emitters, then the cost per tonne marginally increases. For export the costs are 34 times higher, but these exclude offshore cost for unloading and injection, and this therefore needs further consideration. Another element tested in this study was the loss of projects, something not tested before in other studies. Three test scenarios were used based on the arrival of two future projects a 1000MW CCGT north of the Tees and an 850 MW IGCC south of the river. In addition the loss of a steelworks, one of the regions largest emitters was also modelled. These three large projects, particularly the current steelworks, represent anchor projects, large-volume emitters that are significant percentages of the regions emissions. The failure to develop either new project (scenarios 9 and 10) increases network costs by 6 per cent (north) and 45 per cent (south). The loss of the existing steelworks, or failure to capture CO2, results in 20 per cent higher network costs. The importance therefore of mapping future projects, current emitter plans, and technology roll-outs is important in optimising and understanding common infrastructure.

Development of UK infrastructure
The development of CCS infrastructure in the UK is difficult to predict. The major blocker is a clear view of how UK projects will

13

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical

come to market. By 2015 the first demonstration project will be online, potentially closely followed by three or four more with the aid of EPR, NER, and further DECC funding. Post-2020, when the technology may be considered mature, the roll-out becomes driven by investment based on the avoided ETS or floor price cost of carbon. The mechanism to drive CCS is currently not in place. Large roll-out as predicted in the IEA roadmap [15] will require the commercial incentive to develop CCS. This will require clear regulation, higher carbon prices and a technology less expensive and more developed than it is now. Transport infrastructure has its part to play, and reductions anywhere in the chain of technology are valuable. The rate at which a technology matures and cost decreases due to experience and optimisation cannot yet be determined for capture and storage. For capture technology, several comparative studies such as Rubin [16] and IEA [17] (2006/6) compare capture plant to the evolution of flue-gas-desulphurisation (FGD) technology. The learning rate for FGD of 1113 per cent for each doubling of capacity may be applied, but for FGDs but this is only a trend. In reality, the cost of wet FGD remained constant for almost six doublings of installed capacity. From initial deployment to the downswing in costs from maturing technology was over a decade; this included significant increases in cost for early projects. In terms of demonstration projects of 300 MW equivalent, this would require 9.6 GW equivalent of deployed CCS before significant cost reductions occur. With the deployment required to achieve major savings in capture, savings or at least reductions in CAPEX can come from pipelines. Common infrastructure offers significant cost reductions, but with an upfront investment based on a firstmover project. To examine the most recent study in the Humber [18] considered the economics of developing networks. The study showed clearly that deployed projects in a region, even in small networks offered major savings. Economic analysis further showed that investment in right-sizing pipelines to future capacity was beneficial, with a no-regrets period of 16 years. Investment early therefore would deliver low-cost transport solutions at the point that comparative learning rates indicate capture technology will start to deliver at lower costs. There are other drivers that can affect the deployment rates and therefore the need to develop infrastructure. Political, social, and energy issues will drive CCS to deployment. Socially the climate change agenda is driving opinion and in turn this drives policy. Critically the energy-security issue will drive the UK and other European countries to consider the need to deploy gas and coal-fired generation should nuclear and renewable energy deployment not meet the required capacity targets. If carbonreduction targets are to be met, then CCS will have to be deployed as will new gas- and coal-fired generation. Other factors that will play a part in the deployment rate include the ability to gain finance/funding for early projects, storage identification/qualification, technology deployment rates, and social issues such as planning. The critical issue is that of storage identification and access: some studies, such as those by Kjarstad [19], EU [8], and CO2 Europipe [20] identify storage capacity and provide high level indicative infrastructure routes and costs. But the proving of the geological information needs to be progressed. In the short term, consideration needs to be given to the offshore infrastructure requirements and the enabling of

existing infrastructure to be maintained and preserved until CCS deployment can include it. Social issues will affect infrastructure development in terms of location and planning. Recent experience in both natural gas and CCS projects has seen major plans deferred or cancelled. The impact on permitting can be considerable. Simple assumptions in scenarios can take a lower-risk approach when considering the use of brown-field sites to co-locate CCS faculties such as booster stations or the onshore/offshore transition terminals. In terms of development, scenarios can be built from the programme of funding and current projects. One scenario for deployment is shown in Figure 9, showing potential network shapes in line with the DECC-funded competitions and a swing in power generation to CCS post-2025. In this scenario it can clearly be seen by examining the project emitter deployment that common infrastructure installed in early projects can be used to enable future expansion.

Conclusions
Common infrastructure development is clearly justified, beneficial, and economic. The studies for UK regions, EU-wide infrastructure, and other regional work clearly indicate broad themes and generate common influences. There is also a case for common infrastructure planning for even single-emitter projects, and it should be included at the demonstration phase. The success of common infrastructure not only requires commitment in terms of projects and finance, but also a strong technical basis in industry and academia, supportive policy and, ultimately, an informed and supportive populace. Should common infrastructure be deployed, co-ordinated planning, exchange of information between projects, and support of initial pipeline design enabling future volumes and right sizing is not only desirable but warranted.

References
1. GCCSI, 2011. The global status of CCS: 2010. 2. EON, 2009. Capturing carbon, tackling climate change: a vision for a CCS cluster in the South East. 3. Yorkshire Forward, 2008. A carbon capture and storage network for Yorkshire and Humber. 4. SCCS, 2009. Opportunities for CO2 storage around Scotland: an integrated strategic research study. 5. AMEC / One North East, 2010. Engineering design and capture technologies for carbon capture and storage in the Tees Valley. 6. IEA GHG R&D Programme, 2007. Distributed collection of CO2. Report 2007/12. 7. DECC, 2009. Technical analysis of carbon capture & storage (CCS) transportation infrastructure. 8. EON, 2009. Capturing carbon, tackling climate change: a vision for a CCS cluster in the South East. 9. CO2 Europipe, 2011. Development of a large-scale CO2 transport infrastructure in Europe: matching captured volumes and storage availability. www.co2europipe.eu/, 2011-06-13. 10. S.Grewcock, 2008. CO2 storage: an oil industry perspective. Oil & Gas UK Breakfast 11th December, Tullow Oil, www. oilandgasuk.co.uk/downloadabledocs/372/Simon%20 Grewcock.pdf

14

Pipelines International digest | august 2011

technical

11. A.Baddeley, 2011. The East Irish Sea CCS cluster: a conceptual design technical report. Eunomia Consulting (www.eunomia.co.uk), Bristol. 12. IEA GHG R&D Programme, 2007. CO2 capture ready power plants. Report (2007/2), UK. 13. DECC, 2009. Carbon capture readiness (CCR): a guidance note for Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 consent applications. UK HMG. 14. Dynamis, 2008. CO2 quality recommendations. Int. J. of Greenhouse Gas Control,2, pp 478-484. 15. IEA, 2009. Technology roadmap: carbon capture and storage. www.iea.org/papers/2009/CCS_Roadmap.pdf 16. E.S.Rubin, 2007. Cost and performance of fossil fuel power

plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy, 35, pp 4444-4453. 17. IEA GHG R&D Programme, 2006. Estimating the future trends in the cost of CO2 capture technologies. Report 2006/6. 18. J.Watt et al., 2010. CO2 transport infrastructure for Yorkshire and Humber: pre-FEED study report. AMEC, CO2 Sense. 19. J.Kjarstad, 2009. Ramp up of large scale CCS infrastructure in Europe, GHGT-9. 20. F.Neele et al., 2010. Development of large scale CO2 transport infrastructure in Europe: matching captured volumes and storage availability. CO2 Europipe Project.

15

Pipelines International digest | august 2011