Meaningful large-scale storage of carbon close to producers in Europe is predicated on the use of redundant North Sea oil and gas facilities and that requires vessels, according to the experts
The injection of carbon into redundant oil and gas fields in the North Sea is a front runner in the race to produce viable methods of capturing the waste product from European producers. The carbon has to be transported to the storage facilities.
In the webinar: Meeting the technical challenges of large-scale CO2 shipping and terminals held 16 August 2021, Element Energy senior consultant Michael Joos and Anthony Veder Group process engineer Karin Kuipers considered the vessel design and technology requirements, engine and fuel options, energy use and cost estimates, cargo containment systems and cargo handling requirements.
Addressing the project feasibility side of carbon capture and storage (CCS) was Mr Joos. Element Energy has delivered more than 100 CCS projects for international organisations covering the full value chain of CCS. It has also produced techno-economic models and reports of CO2 shipping for the UK Government and for commercial organisations.
Looking at the high-level need for CCS, Mr Joos said, “Multiple studies expect carbon capture storage and utilisation will be required to reach net zero, especially in hard-to-abate industrial sectors such as cement and limescale, steel and chemicals.”
He noted that some governments have committed in law to achieving net-zero emissions. Germany has adopted the Climate Neutral law with a target of 2045. This will require CCS of 65 mega tonnes per year of CO2.
CO2 is a waste product and therefore the driver is lowest cost. Mr Joos noted that pipeline distribution of CO2 is cost-effective up to the 650-km milestone. Thereafter, shipping economics start to take over.
Pipeline is also a high capital cost compared with shipping and until very large volumes are required to be transported, shipping seems to be the most viable. Shipping is also out of sight and meets the not-in-my-backyard criteria.
Mr Joos said CCS logistics are challenging, “The first challenge comes from the fact the CCS shipping chain is made up of several inter-dependent processing and infrastructure layers, and they all have to work smoothly together,” he said.
The CCS chain itself is inter-dependent on cross supply chain risks such as storage availability, variability of emissions and technology compatibility. The second challenge is to determine the optimal transport condition and develop standards for CO2 shipping. Thirdly, port infrastructure constraints such as the maximum ship draft and length that can be accommodated as well as jetty availability have to be managed. These were some of the issues noted by Mr Joos.
In a poll, webinar delegates were asked to pinpoint which standards were required to move CCS shipping to the next stage. Which approach to developing standards do you think would be more instrumental to a quick scale up of CO2 shipping? Agreement on one transport condition (eg low pressure) which is adopted industrywide was chosen by 38%, developing onshore infrastructure as flexible as possible to be able to accommodate CO2 shipped at various conditions was agreed by 62%.
Mr Joos highlighted that there needs to be a sustainable business model and a process to optimise vessel design. Before any of these issues are decided, the key decision impacting the whole of the supply chain is the condition of the CO2 to be transported: to be liquid, CO2 needs to be pressurised.
There are three main accepted levels: low pressure and -50°C, medium pressure 17 bar and -25°C, and high pressure of 45 bar 10°C. Cost will be one of the main factors impacting which CO2 condition becomes the norm for CCS. Webinar delegates were asked to choose a favoured CO2 condition. In a poll: Which CO2 transport condition do you expect to be the dominant one in 2030? Low pressure 7 bar and -50°C: 43%, medium pressure 17 bar and -25°C 48%, high pressure 45 bar and 10°C 9%.
The cost side requires considerable investment from governmental sources. The UK Government is developing business models for CSS and for a regulatory regime similar to that used in the gas and electricity sector.
In Norway, the government is heavily involved in the Northern Lights project, and is covering a significant element of the cost.
The final element of Mr Joos’ presentation was increasing efficiency to reduce the cost of shipping. The opex cost of the CO2 carrier and the fuel cost required to maintain and liquefy CO2 accounts for approximately 80% of the CCS shipping costs. Summarising the challenge of optimising the CCS shipping element, Mr Joos said, “The most efficient solution will depend on the economies of scale offered by larger ships as well as operational constraints such as the time it takes to enter and exit each port.”
Mr Joos’ presentation gave an excellent and detailed view of the CCS shipping situations and this was followed by Ms Kuipers, who has experience of shipping CO2 by sea.
The Anthony Veder Group is a fully integrated gas shipping company, which owns and operates gas ships and provides its own crewing, technical and commercial management. It is a large company set-up in the niche sector of small gas carriers and as such operated a CO2 carrier for food manufacturing clients that use CO2 in food and beverage production.
Coral Carbonic was built in the Netherlands in 1999 and has a single pressurised cylindrical tank with a capacity of 1,250 m3 at 18 bar pressure. The company has extensive experience in operating pressure vessel ships, including ammonia, LNG and LNG carriers. “LPG is normally carried at 7 bar, so a ship like that could be used. However, CO2 is denser,” said Ms Kuipers, “This would result in a ship part-filled with CO2 which is not very efficient.”
Looking at the potential operational profile in the North Sea, the numbers suggest a vessel of around 15,000 m3 capacity on a draft of 10 m. There will be a need to increase the supply of CO2 carriers, or gas carriers with CO2 carrying capabilities.
In a poll: Which of the following emerging gas shipping sectors do you expect to have the largest growth to 2030? CO2 shipping 31%, H2 shipping 20%, ammonia shipping 49%.
Another practical question is the condition of the CO2. Will the vessel have CO2 conditioning on board to maintain a low water content of the CO2, or is this an issue at the terminal end of the voyages?
The terminals present a different set of design issues. Not just CO2 conditioning but cryogenics, storage, jetties and the loading arm. Mr Joos pointed out that these must be compatible and within guidelines. Having talked to port operators, he found there is no clear picture of responsibilities at this stage.
Ms Kuipers noted that North Sea operations might require discharging at a buoy and that would require a different design of ship. Looking ahead, Mr Joos noted that the impact of the EU Emissions Trading System will have to be factored into the CCS shipping projects. Carbon trading systems and CCS has been considered by Element Energy in some of its publications.
Then there is the question of emissions from the ship itself. “Is it fair to emit CO2 when you are shipping CO2?” asked Ms Kuipers. The answer would be to capture carbon on board or to consider ammonia or hydrogen as a marine fuel. “This is part of the design cycle on how we can make the vessel fit for purpose,” said Ms Kuipers.
Mr Joos’ takeaway from the session was that shipping has challenges with decarbonisation, but also opportunities, of which shipping CO2 as a waste product is one. Those challenges are standardisation, purity and pressure. He said, “It seems to me there is an emerging conversion on the technical standardisation of CO2 shipping in the next five to 10 years. And this is quite a quite a promising sign for me.”
Ms Kuipers’ takeaway was that CO2 shipping is very much a shared challenge between industry and shipping. “This is something we have to share with both the emitters and the injectors, and all the supply chain starting with the quality of the CO2,” she said.
© 2023 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.