Authorisation of carbon dioxide storage offshore Scotland - anticipated effects of further devolution

Following the Scottish referendum in 2014, the Smith Commission Agreement1 proposed devolution of further powers to the Scottish Government including some affecting the authorisation of carbon dioxide (CO2) storage under the seabed offshore Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland presented a Command Paper2 to Parliament in January 2015 setting out proposals and draft legislation to take the Smith Commission Agreement forward, with the intention that this could be quickly enacted in the new parliamentary session following the 2015 general election. The present document summarises how the proposed legislation will affect authorisation of CO2 storage offshore Scotland.Following the Scottish referendum in 2014, the Smith Commission Agreement1 proposed devolution of further powers to the Scottish Government including some affecting the authorisation of carbon dioxide (CO2) storage under the seabed offshore Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland presented a Command Paper2 to Parliament in January 2015 setting out proposals and draft legislation to take the Smith Commission Agreement forward, with the intention that this could be quickly enacted in the new parliamentary session following the 2015 general election. The present document summarises how the proposed legislation will affect authorisation of CO2 storage offshore Scotland

Worldwide Comparison of CO₂-EOR Conditions: Comparison of fiscal and industrial conditions in seven global regions where CO₂-EOR is active or under consideration

Previous work within the Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (SCCS) joint industry project (JIP) on carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) which looked at financial incentives for CO2-EOR in the United Kingdom (UK) suggested that development of an EOR project in the UK continental shelf area was most likely only to be considered by a super-major or multinational oil company (Durusut and Pershad, 2014). For such a project to be initiated the overall conditions for CO2-EOR - financial, policy, industrial - would need to be equivalent or favourable compared to other oil-producing regions, otherwise investments would likely be made elsewhere. The purpose of this work package was to compare such conditions between seven major oil- producing regions that either are already, or are considering using CO2-EOR to increase oil outputs. The regions chosen were: • United States of America (USA) onshore • USA Gulf of Mexico • Canada • Malaysia • China • Norway • UK This report covers initial, desk-based research to compare regional conditions for CO2-EOR developments focussing in particular on tax regimes and also covering CO2 supply availability and CO2 transport infrastructure. Other areas of comparison - energy policies, regulatory conditions and government support - are not covered in this report but may be included in further studies.Previous work within the Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (SCCS) joint industry project (JIP) on carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) which looked at financial incentives for CO2-EOR in the United Kingdom (UK) suggested that development of an EOR project in the UK continental shelf area was most likely only to be considered by a super-major or multinational oil company (Durusut and Pershad, 2014). For such a project to be initiated the overall conditions for CO2-EOR - financial, policy, industrial - would need to be equivalent or favourable compared to other oil-producing regions, otherwise investments would likely be made elsewhere. The purpose of this work package was to compare such conditions between seven major oil- producing regions that either are already, or are considering using CO2-EOR to increase oil outputs. The regions chosen were: • United States of America (USA) onshore • USA Gulf of Mexico • Canada • Malaysia • China • Norway • UK This report covers initial, desk-based research to compare regional conditions for CO2-EOR developments focussing in particular on tax regimes and also covering CO2 supply availability and CO2 transport infrastructure. Other areas of comparison - energy policies, regulatory conditions and government support - are not covered in this report but may be included in further studies

Offshore offloading of CO₂: Review of single point mooring types and suitability

There are many types of single point mooring (SPM) and loading systems that have been developed in the offshore Oil and Gas sector for the transfer of hydrocarbon and other fluids from production wells, platforms or floating storages to tankers. Several of them can probably be adapted for transfer, in the opposite direction, of carbon dioxide (CO2) transported by ship as a refrigerated liquid, to injection wells for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or geological storage. However, no clearly favoured offloading system for CO2 has emerged yet (Brownsort, 2015). This brief, desk-based study, carried out by Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (SCCS) as part of the CATO-TKI project Transportation and unloading of CO2 by ship - a comparative assessment, looked at the types of SPM available, their key characteristics and potential suitability for CO2 offloading. The study developed a flow-chart based selection guide for a CO2 offloading mooring taking account of some constraints of location, material and equipment characteristics and operations. It also considered the fit of potential mooring systems to the outline process route options developed earlier in the project. However, recommendations of mooring systems are not possible at the current stage of the project, as case study data has not yet been finalised.There are many types of single point mooring (SPM) and loading systems that have been developed in the offshore Oil and Gas sector for the transfer of hydrocarbon and other fluids from production wells, platforms or floating storages to tankers. Several of them can probably be adapted for transfer, in the opposite direction, of carbon dioxide (CO2) transported by ship as a refrigerated liquid, to injection wells for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or geological storage. However, no clearly favoured offloading system for CO2 has emerged yet (Brownsort, 2015). This brief, desk-based study, carried out by Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (SCCS) as part of the CATO-TKI project Transportation and unloading of CO2 by ship - a comparative assessment, looked at the types of SPM available, their key characteristics and potential suitability for CO2 offloading. The study developed a flow-chart based selection guide for a CO2 offloading mooring taking account of some constraints of location, material and equipment characteristics and operations. It also considered the fit of potential mooring systems to the outline process route options developed earlier in the project. However, recommendations of mooring systems are not possible at the current stage of the project, as case study data has not yet been finalised

CCS for Industrial Sources of CO2 in Europe

CCS for Industrial Sources of CO2 in EuropeCCS for Industrial Sources of CO2 in Europ

Briefing: CCS for Industrial Sources of CO₂ in Europe

Most global focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been within the power generation sector. However, over the last few years, and specifically since the G8 summit in 2010, the profile of CCS for industrial applications has been raised. In Europe, emissions from industry make up about a quarter of total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. To achieve targets matching International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations for limiting global warming, all sectors of the economy will be required to make significant reductions in emissions. Early estimates suggested that the application of CCS to the largest emitters in refineries, iron and steel and cement industries could make a major contribution - 270-330 million tonnes per annum - to CO2 emission reductions in Europe (Rootzén, Kjärstad, Johnsson, 2011). This briefing summarises the most recent published report addressing the scope for CCS in European industry (ZEP, 2013), adds further information from public sources and gives some new analysis of the implications.Most global focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been within the power generation sector. However, over the last few years, and specifically since the G8 summit in 2010, the profile of CCS for industrial applications has been raised. In Europe, emissions from industry make up about a quarter of total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. To achieve targets matching International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations for limiting global warming, all sectors of the economy will be required to make significant reductions in emissions. Early estimates suggested that the application of CCS to the largest emitters in refineries, iron and steel and cement industries could make a major contribution - 270-330 million tonnes per annum - to CO2 emission reductions in Europe (Rootzén, Kjärstad, Johnsson, 2011). This briefing summarises the most recent published report addressing the scope for CCS in European industry (ZEP, 2013), adds further information from public sources and gives some new analysis of the implications

Ship transport of CO₂ for Enhanced Oil Recovery - Literature Survey

Transport of carbon dioxide (CO2) by ship may fulfil a key role in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS), particularly for CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the North Sea where a flexible transport system may be advantageous. Shipping of liquefied CO2 already occurs, albeit at a limited scale, to service the industrial gases market. Use of shipping to supply early-phase CO2-EOR projects may bring benefits including the flexibility to use equipment in several projects, ability to collect from existing industrial sources and moderate capital costs compared to new pipelines. A number of studies have focussed on use of shipping for CO2 transport in the context of CCS; this work package has assessed the available literature, reviewed appropriate studies in detail and summarises in this report the main points of note for CO2-EOR interests.Transport of carbon dioxide (CO2) by ship may fulfil a key role in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS), particularly for CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the North Sea where a flexible transport system may be advantageous. Shipping of liquefied CO2 already occurs, albeit at a limited scale, to service the industrial gases market. Use of shipping to supply early-phase CO2-EOR projects may bring benefits including the flexibility to use equipment in several projects, ability to collect from existing industrial sources and moderate capital costs compared to new pipelines. A number of studies have focussed on use of shipping for CO2 transport in the context of CCS; this work package has assessed the available literature, reviewed appropriate studies in detail and summarises in this report the main points of note for CO2-EOR interests

Industrial CO2 Source Clusters in Scotland

Industrial CO2 Source Clusters in ScotlandIndustrial CO2 Source Clusters in Scotlan

Biomass pyrolysis processes: performance parameters and their influence on biochar system benefits

This study focuses on performance of biomass pyrolysis processes for use in biochar systems. Objectives are to understand the range of control of such processes and how this affects potential benefits of pyrolysis biochar systems, in particular for climate change mitigation. Slow, intermediate and fast pyrolysis processes are reviewed. Product yield distributions change depending on feedstock composition and preparation, control of temperature and material flows. These allow some control over distribution of main products – char, liquids and gases. Typical yield ranges for pyrolysis processes are defined. Variability associated with char yield is estimated at ±5% (relative). Char yield should be considered an underlying, but minor source of variability in pyrolysis biochar systems. A model study is used to compare effects on greenhouse gas balance and electricity generating capability of slow, intermediate and fast pyrolysis processes with direct combustion; there is a trade-off between these benefits following from the different product yield distributions. High char yields allow greater net CO2 benefits but lower electrical output from slow or intermediate pyrolysis. Higher liquid and/or gas yields allow greater electrical output from fast pyrolysis but less than from direct combustion. Fast pyrolysis and direct combustion have similar net CO2 effects when retained char is low. If the objectives of pyrolysis biochar systems are for climate change mitigation then processes with higher char yields should be preferred. The model is sensitive to the reference case chosen for fossil fuel substitution and to the stability of biochar-carbon in soils – a major uncertainty in the analysis of pyrolysis biochar systems. Financial analysis shows the trend in income value for pyrolysis and combustion processes is opposite to the trend in climate change mitigation benefits. Lifecycle CO2 analysis suggests dominant factors in pyrolysis biochar systems relate to carbon sequestration in biochar and fossil fuels substitution by renewable electricity