FEED Studies Knowledge Transfer and Lessons Learned

GCCSi Member Meeting

May 2012 UK CCS Demonstration Competition 1 FEED Studies Knowledge Transfer and Lessons Learned Louise Barr Office of Carbon Capture and Storage Department of Energy & Climate Change

Introduction to Demo 1 FEED

2007 2011

Introduction to the projects

Kingsnorth-Hewett (E.ON)

Hewett

Dawn

Big Dotty

Dierdre Deborah

Delilah

Della

Little Dotty

Pr

op

os

ed

Lo

ca

tio

n

48

/3

0-

W

3kms

Introduction to the projects

Longannet-Goldeneye (SPC)

o Capture plant

o CO2 conditioning and compression

o Pipelines

o Offshore facilities and wells

o Store and complex

o External environment

o Full chain

Key findings from the FEED studies

Capture plant

Examples of key takeaways

• Strong end-to-end flow analysis is required of the

impact of power station and capture plant flexibility on the

CCS chain

• Integrating capture and power plant to optimise heat

efficiency introduces many complicating factors

• Retrofitting CCS to existing plant adds further

complications with or without heat integration

• Scale up projects will confirm confidence in chemistry

(e.g. amine degradation products). Levels are so low they

are very difficult to detect in small scale pilots

Pipelines

Examples of key takeaways

• New pipeline construction is business as usual but

is still challenging in crowded waterways

• Pipeline re-use has advantages but requires

significant analysis

• The operations aspects of managing CO2 phase

changes are complex - detailed and integrated end-

to-end system analysis is essential

• Risk of a running ductile fracture can be managed

• Gas transport usually benefits from “free” energy in

reservoirs - energy needed for CCS transport is not

free

Store & Complex

Examples of key takeaways

• Substantial new subsurface modelling work (in store and

complex) is required, even for mature fields

• The selection of an appropriate measurement, monitoring

and verification approach is highly situation specific

– Expect early „over-instrumentation‟, with simplification as

confidence is gained (by both developers and regulators)

• It is possible to assure existing well integrity though there

are challenges

– Confidence in integrity of inherited infrastructure is lower

than that which is self-built/ operated (for example different

assumptions regarding well cement)

– Data availability and quality on third party wells is also key

to assurance

External environment

Examples of key takeaways

• The FEEDs advanced CCS consenting „case studies‟ significantly and informed CCS

legislation and regulatory development

• Full CCS chain requires enormous consenting effort (though not much is CO2

specific)

• Specific consenting and regulatory responsibilities can be split along the chain with

Consortium Partners responsible for their own detailed messaging. However, Capture,

transportation and storage should always be bundled together into a full chain story

for stakeholders.

• Early engagement with local communities

• Obtaining key consents and avoiding adverse public reaction remained in top post-

FEED risks for both projects

Full chain

Examples of key takeaways

• FEED narrowed cost estimates significantly

Capex Cost Range

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Outline Solution FEED

£m

Full chain

Examples of key takeaways

• FEED reduces risk significantly

Risk Score

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

May-10

(Baseline)

Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11

Month

Total Risk

Values

Demo 1 FEEDs

Examples of key takeaways

• The two Demo 1 FEEDs show that CCS at scale is technically feasible,

although economic, regulatory & commercial challenges remain.

• FEED for a CCS chain is really 4 FEEDs (one for each component part

plus a chain integration FEED) and takes a huge amount of effort from a

wide variety of skill sets and experiences as well as Regulators

• FEED is essential to allow decision makers (Government, Developers,

Regulators) to get comfortable with the risks (cost, schedule and scope

delivery)

• The Knowledge Transfer from the FEEDs should help accelerate CCS

deployment – with the insights from the Demo 1 FEEDS, future FEEDs

should be able to focus quicker

Lessons Learned

Objectives & Communication

Clarity of the commercial position (risks and the financial envelope)

• Available funds and funding mechanisms

• Allows earlier identification of potential showstoppers

Risk allocation

• Risk to be placed where it can most effectively be managed

Clear and frequent communication

• DECC and industry to invest time better to understand each other's

organisations early in the procurement process and identify aspects that

may cause problems in working together

Modest investment in FEED in first demonstration project; created shared view of risk

envelope and reduced cost uncertainty.

Alignment of strategic objectives, internally and externally

Lessons Learned

Working together to a solution

Collaborative solution development

• Early market engagement to shape procurement and prepare market for proposals

stage

• It is important to maintain competitive pressure, to deliver value for the taxpayer

and electricity consumer but also allow industry a far greater role in shaping CCS

solutions

• Build both DECC / Industry / Investor confidence in Programme

Procurement Tempo

• First demonstrator project was extended / protracted.

– this increased procurement costs and vulnerability to external events

• Need to agree a realistic programme and adhere to it

Knowledge Transfer

• A key deliverable. If possible share knowledge as it is created, where

commercially sound to do so.

• Clarity in difference between Knowledge and Intellectual Property

GCCSi Member Meeting May 2012

Thank you