Carbon capture and storage - a commercial conundrum (Part 2)

Following on from Part 1, I thought it would be interesting to explore commercial-scale CCS projects. Below is a world map of recent large-scale CCS projects; those operating and those under construction. The US boasts the majority of these projects. The 21 operational CCS projects have a combined annual carbon capture capacity of 40 million tonnes (Global CCS Institute).

Figure 1: Key CCS Projects (Source: Global status of CCS 2016 Report)

Kemper County Coal Plant - USA

The Kemper County energy facility is an electricity-generating coal plant located in Mississippi, USA. All the coal is mined from nearby hills. It advertises itself as one of the world’s 1^st ‘Clean Coal-tech’ facilities; due to its large-scale CCS scheme to capture CO₂ emissions.

Figure 2: Kemper County Energy Facility

It has an annual carbon capture capacity of 3 million tonnes, approximately 2/3 of its emissions; which are used for enhanced oil recovery. The video below emphasises the socio-economic benefits the facility has provided in the USA’s most deprived state: affordable energy & a multitude of jobs.

Some suggest that CCS technologies sustain our fossil fuel reliance and prevent any change (Stephens, 2013). I feel this this argument is valid: surely if we are trying to mitigate climate change, we should stop burning coal to enhance oil extraction? It seems like a paradox. Moreover, CCS technology does not come cheap – the Kemper coal plant is apparently $4 billion over budget, as of July 2016.

In Salah CCS storage site – Algeria

The In Salah site was one of the few CCS projects in the Middle East. In alliance with 3 energy-giants: BP, Statoil and Sonatrach, the site was operational from 2004-2011. Carbon from gas production would be removed and injected into several wells into the underlying Krechba gas field: a depleted gas reservoir. During its existence, over 3.8 million tonnes of carbon were stored at a 1,800m depth (Global CCS Institute; MIT, 2016).

Figure 3: In Salah storage site

Seismological studies suggest a strong correlation with injection frequency and earthquakes – with over 9056 microseismic events detected from 2009-2011 (Stork et al, 2015). This compromised the structural integrity of the 950m cap-rock by causing faults; which is why the site was eventually closed (White et al, 2014). 

A similar problem was encountered in the Norwegian North Sea at the Sleipner field – a natural gas production site which injects waste CO₂ into a deep saline reservoir. In 2013 the discovery of fractures prompted a concern for potential leakage pathways of CO₂ (Monastersky, 2013). 

Final thoughts

I do believe technology holds the solution to climate change mitigation – but I don’t feel it is CCS. With the closure of various CCS plants, the massive risk associated with failure and the reluctance of governments to continue funding such schemes, I can understand why there is little confidence in the idea.

Forming alliances with energy firms to tackle climate change is contentious. Regardless of opinion, energy firms do not have a clean track record when it comes to environmental issues – BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill immediately comes to mind. I am not entirely convinced that CCS in its current form would pave a low-carbon, renewable-energy based future. Even if CCS is undertaken without fossil fuel burning, the risks still remain.