Determining the Prospects for CCS in Southeast Asia

Pradeep Tharakan Climate Change Specialist Energy Division, Southeast Asia Department

Asian Development Bank

Presentation Outline
• Prospects for CCS in S.E. Asia. • Thailand Case Study. • Conclusions from ADB’s Work.

Energy Sector Emissions to Increase
ASEAN Generation Capacity by Country and Fuel

• Region’s primary energy demand increases by 76% (2007-2030) (Source: World Energy Outlook 2009, IEA) • Coal use set to increase

CCS cost varies across sectors

CO2-EOR can help offset costs

Source: CCS Road Map (IEA, 2009)

• High CO2 gas fields in S.E. Asia • CO2 flooding (CO2EOR) could increase oil production and enhance energy security
30 – 40% CO2 25 – 80% CO2

20 – 60% CO2

Average Ranges for CO2 in Natural Gas Fields in Viet Nam (Source: ADB study)

2 – 5% CO2

2 – 12% CO2


CCS in Southeast Asia
– Focus on 4 countries: Indonesia (South Sumatra region), Philippines (CALABARZON region), Thailand and Viet Nam – US$1.35 Million grant from Global CCS Institute through ADB Clean Energy Financing Partnership Facility
– Worked commenced in October 2010, TA completed by December 2012

– TA output –
• Detailed country reports – confidential (July 2012) • Regional analysis report – highlights and comparisons (August 2012)

TA Activities
Oil and Gas Power Chemical Oil and Gas Saline Aquifer Coalbed Methane

Screen CO2 Sources (Current & Future)

Screen Storage/Sink Sites

Source-Sink Matching

Legal/Regulatory Analysis

Economic Analysis

Social Analysis

CCS Roadmap

Thailand Case Study


Ranking Criteria
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 Preferential Criteria Remaining Life (Startup Date) Plant Operating Stability CO2 Volume per Year Source Stream CO2 Concentration Source Stream SOx Concentration Source Stream NOx Concentration Score 4 4 13 21 11 4

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Source Stream O2 Concentration
Source Stream Particulates Content Trace Materials Content Distance from Attractive Storage Location Existing Infrastructure Space Availability Supercritical Power Station Willing Partner Storage Opportunity

4 4 4 6 4 4 9 4


Existing Thailand CO2 Sources
• 51 major sources covering power generation, cement, oil and gas production, and natural gas processing . • 21 sources produce >2Mt/y and 29 >1Mt/y.


Estimated CO2 Emission (t/y)
-30,000,000 -25,000,000 -20,000,000 -10,000,000


10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 5,000,000 0


Ranking of Sources by All Criteria

Score (100)
Rayong NG Processing Khanom NG Processing Gheco-one Khanom Combine Cycle Gulf Power Generation Ratchauri Power (Set 1, 2) Glow IPP (Bowin) Independent Power (Thailand) Trienergy Ratchaburi Combine Cycle 1 Ratchaburi Combine Cycle 3

EstCO2 (t/y)
Ratchaburi Combine Cycle 2
Wangnoi power plant BLCP Power Plant Chana power plant Namphong power plant Rayong-set 4 Eastern Power

Rayong-set 1
Rayong-set 3 Rayong-set 2 Mae Moh power plant










Score (Max = 100)




CO2 Sink Identification and Ranking
• Data request
– Oil and gas fields; EOR Prospects – Saline aquifers

• Storage volume estimates • Simple decision analysis process
– Decision factors – Qualifying and Preferential – Weightings – Scoring


Thailand’s Sedimentary Basins (90+)


CO2 Storage Capacity in Thailand’s Sedimentary Basins


Thailand’s Oil & Gas Fields CO2 Storage Capacity

Carbon Capture and Storage in Thailan Bangkok · 2 May 2012 15
Asian Development Bank

Ordered by score.
Oil is blue Gas is red

Source-Sink matches - 300 km Radius

Possible CCS Projects - Thailand
• Onshore Capture/Onshore Storage – CO2 for a pilot from a closer industrial source – CO2 storage at A oil and gas field with EOR opportunity and 49 Mt of storage capacity – 1 Mt/y CO2 capture at B coal fired power station, pipeline distance <200 km • Onshore Capture/Offshore Storage – CO2 source at C gas processing facility (1Mt/y), alternatively D Gas fired power plant, pipeline distance >200 km (possible use of existing pipeline) – E Oil & Gas field with possible EOR and ~55 Mt of storage • Offshore Capture/Offshore Storage – CO2 sources at multiple offshore platforms, pipeline >100 km – Multiple offshore depleted reservoirs, some with EOR potential, storage ~400 Mt

Pathway to CCS Commercialization




Economic Analysis of CCS: Thailand Case
• Case studies presented
– ~550 MWe supercritical coal plant burning imported bituminous coal (4 Mt/y of CO2), – ~500 MWe natural gas combined cycle unit (1.4 Mt/y of CO2) – 1 Mt/y of CO2 capture from natural gas processing plants.

• Costs were estimated using data available in the published to literature • Impact of CO2-EOR on project economics • Sensitivity analysis

Cost and Financial Viability Indicators
Capital Costs
• Equipment purchase & installation • Labour • Bulks • Engineering, Construction Management, Head office & Fee • Physical contingencies • Owner's costs • CO2 pipeline construction • CO2 storage site construction

Annual Costs
• • • • • Fuel Fixed OPEX Variable OPEX Pipeline maintenance CO2 storage operating cost

• Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) or CO2 captured • Maximum CO2 cost acceptable to the oil company for EOR

Levelized Cost of Electricity

• •

CCS increases the cost of electricity, more for coal than natural gas The higher capital cost of coal-fired plants is a major factor

Cost of CO2 captured or avoided

• •

The higher CO2 avoided cost is the most important value for trading credits A full subsidy of the CO2 avoided cost will wipe out the increased cost of electricity due to CCS at the power plant


Coal Plant

Reference assumption

With a CCS Capex subsidy of $2400/kW, coal power plant can generate electricity at $113/MWh. However, it will need additional adder of $25/MWh to meet current electricity tariff at $88/MWh Without a CCS Capex subsidy an adder of $58/MWh will be needed to support CCS. With a CCS Capex subsidy of $600/kW, NGCC will generate electricity at $88/MWh, the current electricity tariff Without a CCS Capex subsidy NGCC will require an adder of $7/MWh to operate NGCC is a better option for CCS in the near term



Reference assumption

CO2 from gas processing for EOR
Reference assumption

Breakeven At $70/b

• The capture cost of a pure CO2 stream from gas processing plus the cost of pipelining over 150 km is estimated at $23/t captured. This cost is supported by EOR at an oil price greater than $70/b


Results from Other Focus Countries


Possible CCS Projects – Indonesia (South Sumatra)
• South Sumatra identified a total of 8 Mt/year of emissions source from power generation, cement, fertilizer production and oil and gas sector • Smaller volume of source of pure CO2 stream exist in gas processing plants - cost effective supply option for smaller scale CCS projects • The most attractive storage options for CCS appears to be depleting oil fields – EOR opportunities • ADB will explore possible support for a grant-financed CCS pilot activity in Indonesia with the government and the state-owned oil and gas company.

Possible CCS Projects
Viet Nam • Attractive CO2 sources exist, today and in the future • Suitable sinks available - offshore • Gas processing offers future opportunity for CCS project Philippines • Storage in Oil and Gas field (cap. 287 Mt), field is available for storage by 2024. • Other storage (need further study): Geothermal fields and Ophiolites • A near-term CCS project in the Calabarzon region is hard to justify.

CCS in Southeast Asia
• Near-term Focus on Gas Processing Facilities.
– Existing capacity within operators – High CO2 fields provide economic incentive – Combine with EOR for additional revenue

• Medium term emphasis on gas-fired power plants.
– Especially if a shift to gas as projected happens – In countries where tariff structure is supportive – Combine with EOR for additional revenue

• Medium-to-long term emphasis on coal-fired power plants.
– Lack of familiarity with SC and USC coal-fired plants – No plans for IGCC – Increased tariffs are a hard sell


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful