You are on page 1of 20

This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]

On: 01 May 2015, At: 23:42


Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Environmental


Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/genv20

Carbon dioxide capture and geological


storage: research, development and
application in Australia
a
Peter Cook
a
Chief Executive, Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse
Gas Technologies (CO2CRC), Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
Published online: 10 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Peter Cook (2006) Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage: research,
development and application in Australia, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 63:6,
731-749, DOI: 10.1080/00207230601047073

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207230601047073

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
International Journal of Environmental Studies,
Vol. 63, No. 6, December 2006, 731749

Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage:


research, development and application in Australia
PETER J. COOK
Chief Executive, Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC), PO Box
463 Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia, Email: pjcook@co2crc.com.au
Taylor and Francis Ltd
GENV_A_204611.sgm
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

(Received 7 September 2006)


International
10.1080/00207230601047073
0020-7233
Original
60Taylor
63
Chief
2006
pjcook@co2crc.com.au
00000Executive
&Article
Francis
(print)/1029-0400
Journal
PeterCook
of Environmental
(online) Studies

Projections of world energy demand indicate increasing use of fossil fuels, especially coal. Because
of this there is interest in using carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies as a mitigation
option, particularly in Australia because of its dependency on fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Research in Australia into capture options includes post-combustion capture (PCC), integrated gasifi-
cation combined cycle (IGCC) and oxyfuels combustion. Separation technologies being investigated
in Australia include solvent absorption, membranes, adsorption and cryogenics, with particular
emphasis on bringing down costs. Australia appears to have abundant geological storage capacity,
particularly in saline formations and to a much lesser extent in depleted oil and gas fields. Storage in
coal systems has potential but more research and development is needed. Australia has the opportu-
nity to use low-emission hubs in order to bring down costs. A major study of this concept for the
Latrobe Valley of Victoria, based on 50 million tonnes per annum of CO2 emissions, is encouraging.
A key concept for taking CO2 capture and geological storage forward is demonstration and commer-
cial deployment. Australian projects are proposed for PCC and oxyfuels combustion. A significant
geological storage project has started in the Otway Basin, with CO2 injection scheduled to commence
in mid-2007. The coal-to-liquids Monash Project could involve up to 10 million tonnes CO2 per
annum, with injection into the offshore Gippsland Basin. The most advanced commercial project is
the LNG Gorgon Project, comprising about 3 million tonnes per annum. Through current R&D
momentum and the likelihood of a number of major commercial-scale projects, Australia could
become an early mover in the application of carbon dioxide capture and geological storage.

Keywords: Carbon dioxide; Geosequestration; Capture and separation; Geological storage; Australia

Background

Australia emits only 1.6% of the worlds total greenhouse gas emissions but its industries are
energy intensive, it is a major user of electricity, and it has one of the worlds highest per
capita rates of greenhouse gas emissions. State and Federal governments are committed to
decreasing Australias CO2 emissions, but there is no wish to implement measures that will
place a major impost on the economy or result in Australian industry becoming uncompeti-
tive. Governments are conscious of the fact that unless global steps are taken to limit green-
house gas emissions, particularly CO2, major climate change-related costs could be imposed
on the Australian economy and the environment as well as on tourism and agriculture and on
peoples lives. Therefore, whilst Australia has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, and is unlikely

International Journal of Environmental Studies


ISSN 0020-7233 print: ISSN 1029-0400 online 2006 Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC)
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00207230601047073
732 P. J. Cook

to do so, it is a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change


(UNFCCC) which aims to stabilize the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system [1],
and it has a vigorous approach to the development and application of greenhouse gas
technologies.
In Australia, energy demand is projected to increase by 50% by 2020, requiring at least
A$37 billion in new energy investments, mainly for the provision of base load coal-fired
power. A range of mitigation measures will be required by Australia, including greater
energy efficiency, switching to lower carbon intensity fuels, greater use of renewable energy
and carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCGS, or geosequestration).
Geosequestration has the potential to enable Australia and other nations to make deep cuts
in emissions yet maintain the economic benefits of using much of the existing energy
infrastructure [2]. This paper reviews R&D in the field of geosequestration , and considers
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

the potential for commercal use of this technology.

CO2 capture technology

The starting point for geosequestration is capture of CO2. In a few instances, industrial
processes emit fairly pure CO2 and that CO2 can be captured and separated relatively
cheaply. Such processes include the manufacture of some fertilizers and natural gas process-
ing. The latter is especially significant because it provides a relatively pure stream of CO2 at
little additional incremental cost. The reason for this is that the CO2 has to be separated from
methane and other gases in the first place to make the gas marketable. It is also for this reason
that some of the earliest geosequestration projects are based on natural gas activities, such as
Sleipner in Norway [3] and In Salah in Algeria. The Western Australian Gorgon LNG project
[4] is currently planned to be the first large scale commercial geosequestration project in
Australia.
The issue of separation of CO2 from natural gas is likely to be significant to Australia in
the future, as approximately half of its identified natural gas resources have high concentra-
tions of CO2 (i.e. concentrations higher than would be allowable in retail gas) which means
that the CO2 must first be separated. As natural gas production increases so will the amount
of pure CO2 separated at the production facility. For these reasons natural gas processing is
likely to be an early mover in the application of geosequestration in Australia. Other early
opportunities may arise from cement manufacturing (modern plants emit up to 50% CO2 in
the emission stream) and iron and steel plants, but the most significant one may prove to be
gas to liquids (GTL) and coal to liquids (CTL) projects, such as the proposed Monash Project
in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria [5].
The great majority of Australias anthropogenic CO2 is emitted from coal-fired power
stations which can have CO2 concentrations in the emission stream as low as 1015%.
Lignite is used for power generation in Victoria and is a major source of emissions. It is
costly to increase the concentration of CO2 from 15% to 95% or more, in terms of chemical
costs, the capital cost of the separation plant and the operating costs, including the extra
power requirements of the separation process. As a result application of CO2 capture to
Australias existing power generation plants is likely to be expensive. The capture of CO2 is
currently the most expensive component of the overall cost of geosequestration (approx.
7080%) and for this reason, there is a considerable research effort, in Australia and
overseas focused on reducing the cost burden of CO2 capture [2].
Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage 733

Applying CO2 capture to a typical existing power plant is referred to as post-combustion


capture (PCC), in which the low-pressure exhaust gases (currently emitted to the atmosphere)
are passed through a separation process that removes CO2 (figure 1). The current benchmark
separation technology is solvent absorption. Post-combustion facilities can be retrofitted to
existing power plants or provided as a feature of new plants in the future. There are no existing
power stations in Australia (or elsewhere) equipped for post-combustion capture of CO2 on a
commercial scale. CSIRO, in collaboration with industry, proposes to establish a PCC facility
(www.csiro.au). International Power has recently announced a project at the Hazelwood
Power Station in Victoria involving CO2CRC and the installation of a PCC system.
An alternative approach, pre-combustion capture, involves Integrated Gasification
Figure 1. Capture applications (after CO2 Capture Project and IEA GHG R&D program) [34].

Combined Cycle (IGCC) (figure 1). In this type of plant, the fuel is not combusted but
reacted at high pressure and temperature to form a synthesis gas, containing CO, CO2 and H2.
This gas stream is then reacted further with water to convert the residual CO to CO2 and H2,
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

allowing the CO2 to be captured and sent to storage. The H2 is combusted to produce power,
with water as the main exhaust to the atmosphere. There are several hundred gasification
plants in operation around the world at present, mainly used for the production of chemicals.
Australia is currently considering the IGCC option.
The Queensland Centre for Low Emission Technology (cLET) has as its emphasis
improved gas cleaning, gas separation and gas conditioning technologies [6]. This research
focus will lead to the development of Pulverized Coal (PC), Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle (IGCC) and hydrogen/synfuels production technologies (see www.clet.net). Its key
initiative is to establish, build and operate a 5 MW, national low emission gasification
research and test facility for black coal. The facility will undertake research critical to improv-
ing understanding of the gasification performance of Australian coals, improve gasification
technologies and understand long-term gasifier performance issues. The proposed national
pilot facility will be a critical step for acquiring and building core national competencies.
Also under consideration in Australia is oxyfuels combustion (figure 1). This technology is
similar to that used in existing power plants, except that rather than combusting the fuels in
air, combustion occurs in an oxygen atmosphere. This removes the significant amount of
nitrogen that makes up air (and dilutes the flue gases, making the CO2 separation step more
difficult and costly). Changes are required to the boiler and associated flue gas handling

Figure 1. Capture applications (after CO2 Capture Project and IEA GHG R&D program) [34].
734 P. J. Cook

system to accommodate the higher flame temperatures resulting from combustion with
oxygen. The resultant flue gas is highly concentrated in CO2 and can be purified in the
process of compressing and condensing the CO2 for storage. The Centre for Coal in Sustain-
able Development (CCSD) has an extensive program of coal-based research [7] and in
conjunction with industry has a project underway on oxyfuel combustion (www.ccsd.biz),
and is participating in an industry oxyfuels consortium (see later).

Separation technology

While the option of deploying different power generation applications exists to reduce
capture costs, different cost-reducing separation technologies are also being researched for
each application (table 1).
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

All of these technologies (with the exception of chemical looping) are being investigated
by the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) through
its collaborating organizations (Curtin University, Monash University, University of New
South Wales and University of Queensland) (www.co2crc.com.au). The Centre has recently
had a patent approved that it believes will significantly decrease the cost of capture in post-
combustion applications.
Solvent absorption involves a cyclical process in which CO2 is absorbed from a gas stream
directed into a liquid, typically an amine. The gas stream, with most of the CO2 removed, is
then emitted to the atmosphere. The CO2-laden liquid is processed to remove the CO2, which
is then concentrated for storage. The resulting CO2-free liquid is used again for absorption
and the process continues. This technique is fairly widely used in a range of applications, but
it has large power requirements for regeneration of the solvent which constitutes a significant
cost impediment. Work by CO2CRC through Melbourne University [8], in collaboration
with the University of Regina, is focused on bringing down those costs. The CSIRO Energy
Technology Division is embarking on a new program of molecular engineering with the aim
of developing high-efficiency sorbents.
Membranes, made of polymers or ceramics, can be used to sieve out CO2 from gas
streams. The membrane material is specifically designed to separate preferentially the mole-
cules in the mixture. A range of configurations exist either simply as gas separation devices
or incorporating liquid absorption stages. This process has not to date been applied on a large
scale and there are challenges related to the composition and temperature of the flue gases.
CO2CRC (Melbourne University, University of New South Wales and University of Queen-
sland) is undertaking research into a variety of molecular sieves [9,10]. cLET is working on
the scale-up of molecular sieve silica membranes for H2 separation and developing a second

Table 1. Capture separation technologies and their relevance to various applications (after CO2CRC, 2004).

Application

Separation technology Natural gas separation Post-combustion Pre-combustion Oxyfuels

Solvent absorption
Membranes
Adsorption
Cryogenics/hydrates
Chemical looping
Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage 735

catalytic membrane reactor module incorporating a water gas separator reactor with H2
separation.
Adsorption is based on a cyclical process in which CO2 is adsorbed from a gas stream onto
the surface of a solid, typically a mineral zeolite. The gas stream, with most of the CO2
removed, is then emitted to the atmosphere. The CO2 laden solid, typically in a fixed bed, is
then purified in stages using differences in either pressure or temperature to remove and
concentrate the CO2 for storage. CO2CRC, through Monash University [11], is undertaking
extensive research into adsorption, with encouraging results.
Cryogenics techniques use low temperatures to cool, condense and purify CO2 from gas
streams. It has been applied to moderately concentrated CO2 streams and is being investi-
gated by Curtin University as a separation option.
Chemical looping is similar in some ways to the oxyfuels approach in that oxygen is
removed from air prior to combustion by reacting with metal particles in a fluidized bed to
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

form metal oxides. This captured oxygen, in the form of metal oxide is then contacted with
the fuel, such as natural gas in a separate fluidized bed, effectively combusting the fuel,
releasing energy and producing CO2 and water.

Transport of CO2
Unless the source of separated CO2 lies directly above or adjacent to a site for injection, it is
necessary to transport the CO2 to the site, usually by pipeline. The CO2 will normally be
compressed to a supercritical state prior to transport, and water (and possibly some contami-
nants) will be removed because of the potential corrosive effects of a CO2-water mix on steel.
There are no major technical barriers to the transport of CO2.
In Australia, transport by pipeline is widely used for natural gas. Therefore pipeline trans-
port of CO2 in Australia is likely to be acceptable to the community. Cost per tonne of CO2
transported will vary, depending on the amount of CO2 being transported, the longevity of
the project, the topography and whether the pipeline is being laid onshore or offshore.
However, a transport cost of A$12 per tonne CO2 per 100 km of pipeline appears to be in
the right range for an onshore project but costs are significantly higher for an offshore
project. It is likely that the cost of transport would be less in Australia than in many other
countries because of its relatively flat topography, coupled with the low population density.
This natural advantage could be outweighed in places where geological storage locations are
not within a reasonable distance (see later).
The issue of transport has potential implications to the future siting of power stations in
Australia and elsewhere. Indeed it would be prudent for any future power station to be sited
only after giving careful consideration to future storage options.

The geological storage of CO2


Prior to storage, the gas stream is concentrated to 90% or more of CO2 and compressed to a
supercritical state. Provided the CO2 is injected to a depth of 800 m or more, it will remain in
a supercritical state, which means that far more CO2 can be stored than if it were to be injected
in a gaseous state. There are a range of geological formations and situations that can be used
for geological storage (figure 2). Most of these are potentially relevant to Australia. The
CO2CRC, through its collaborators (CSIRO, Curtin University, Geoscience Australia and the
University of Adelaide) is the main focus for geological storage research in Australia. This
work commenced in 1999 under the Australian Petroleum CRC GEODISC program [12].
736 P. J. Cook
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

Figure 2. Options for geological storage of CO2.

The storage of CO2 involves keeping the CO2 secured deep underground in an appropriate
Figure 2. Options for geological storage of CO2.

geological formation. The main geological conditions for this include: a porous and perme-
able reservoir rock, a trap, and an impermeable cap rock. Expertise in locating such geologi-
cal formations is well established within the oil and gas industry, and geoscientists and
engineers use mature technology to identify and evaluate specific sites for their geosequestra-
tion potential. Each site is evaluated for its potential storage volume as well as to ensure that
conditions for safe and effective long-term storage are present.
Depleted oil and natural gas fields (figure 2), which generally have proven geologic traps,
reservoirs and seals, are potentially excellent sites for storage of injected CO2. Sedimentary
basins in Australia where this is likely to be applicable in the future include the offshore
Gippsland Basin, as existing fields become depleted over the next 1020 years, and the
Western Australian margin starting in the next 2040 years as major gas fields are depleted
(figure 3). In some circumstances it may be possible to combine geological storage of CO2
with enhanced oil recovery or enhanced gas recovery. This has not been carried out to date in
Australia but is area of research by CO2CRC because of the potential to combine geoseques-
tration with increased production of hydrocarbons.
In addition to structural trapping mechanisms, CO2 storage can result from solubility and
Figure 3. Location of Australian sedimentary basins, major sources of CO2 and proposed demonstration and commercial geosequestration projects. Since the preparation of this figure, the Australian Government has confirmed funding for three low emission projects: the Halewood 2030 Project in SE Victoria, the ZCP Project at Fairview in central Queensland, and the CS Oxyfuel Project at Callide in central Queensland.

mineral trapping. Australia has very extensive basins with deep saline formations, both
onshore and particularly offshore (figure 3), in which large quantities of CO2 can dissolve
with the work of the APCRC (the precursor to CO2CRC) demonstrating that there is a CO2
storage resource equivalent to many hundreds of years of emissions at the current rate.
Worldwide, this type of geological formation is also considered to have a high storage
potential by the IPCC [2]. Solubility trapping involves the dissolution of CO2 into the saline
Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage 737
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

Figure 3. Location of Australian sedimentary basins, major sources of CO2 and proposed demonstration and
commercial geosequestration projects. Since the preparation of this figure, the Australian Government has
confirmed funding for three low emission projects: the Hazelwood 2030 Project in SE Victoria, the ZCP Project at
Fairview in central Queensland, and the CS Oxyfuel Project at Callide in central Queensland.

formation water. Recent research indicates that as the CO2 moves through the geological
formation, a proportion of the CO2 dissolves in the formation water. Modelling has shown
that with time, the CO2-rich water has a higher density which causes downward fingering of
the denser CO2 rich waters, resulting in there being a decreased likelihood of any trapped
CO2 leaking to the surface [13].
Mineral trapping involves the reaction of CO2 with unstable minerals present in the host
formation to form stable mineral compounds such as carbonates. CO2 can also be adsorbed
onto fine organic particles in coal but there are difficulties in injecting the CO2 into the coal
because of the typically low permeability, which therefore requires that the permeability of the
coal must be greatly enhanced prior to CO2 injection, by the extraction of water and/or coal
bed methane. The Energy Transformed Flagship of CSIRO (www.csiro.au) is conducting
research to develop an understanding of the geological and geochemical behaviour of CO2
injected into coal seams by determining the adsorption/desorption properties of CO2 in coal.
In addition, it is undertaking analogue studies of naturally occurring CO2 in Sydney Basin coals
as a basis for predicting the long-term behaviour of CO2 injected into coals [14]. Coal-bearing
formations may be a valuable storage option combined with production of coal bed methane,
in areas such as Queensland and New South Wales but more research is needed to confirm this.
CO2CRC has also embarked on a program of storage assessment of Australias major coal
basins through its collaborators (GA, CSIRO, University of Adelaide, University of Queen-
sland), building on the detailed coal work of CSIRO, but also considering the entire coal
sequence, with a view to assessing the opportunities for using low-permeability sandstones
738 P. J. Cook

and long-reach horizontal wells. This technique has been used to great effect at In Salah by
BP and may be applicable in parts of eastern Australia. There is also a need to assess the
extent to which coals are of value as low-permeability seals. Beyond the mainstream
geological storage opportunities, the prospects are limited in Australia for storage in basalts
or oil shales and these are not being actively investigated at present.
Monitoring stored CO2 can be done using an array of direct and remote sensing technolo-
gies deployed on or above the surface and in the borehole, and CO2CRC, together with the
Alberta Research Council, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and industry partners, is
undertaking research into monitoring systems. The technologies record properties such as
pressure, temperature, electrical resistivity and sound responses in injection and observation
wells. Other monitoring involves seismic, microseismic, petrophysical well logs and
geophysical sampling, to tracking movement of CO2 in the subsurface prior to, during and
post-injection. Baseline surveys of the distribution, type and origin of any existing CO2 in a
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

potential storage site is carried out through soil gas sampling and other analyses. Geochemi-
cal sampling at surface localities allows rapid detection of any seepage or leakage in the
unlikely event that this occurs. To date, monitoring has not been undertaken in Australia but
an extensive program is planned for the Otway Basin and for Barrow Island as part of future
storage projects, and at these locations CO2CRC [15] and Chevron [4] respectively, have
undertaken extensive baseline studies as a prelude to monitoring.
Individual storage sites need to be well characterized with respect to the physical and
chemical processes which will take place during and after injection. Australia is probably
more advanced than most other countries in the extent to which it has assessed its storage
potential, but there is still more work to be done to turn a storage resource into a storage
reserve, that is, one that is economically and technically viable. This is particularly impor-
tant for Eastern Australia where most of the major emission sources are located. Technolo-
gies available for monitoring the stored CO2 also need to be evaluated under Australian
conditions. The Otway Basin Project will be a key activity for doing this. In addition the risks
associated with all phases of the process must be identified and understood [16]. Currently it
appears that there are many potential storage sites in Australia that will be low risk but more
work is needed. Nonetheless, bearing all of these issues in mind there are no major technical
impediments to the uptake of geological storage of CO2 in Australia, provided there is a
nearby supply of concentrated CO2.
It is important to ensure that the community is aware of the technologies involved in geose-
questration and is willing to accept it as an appropriate mitigation technology. For this reason,
a great deal of effort is now underway to communicate the technology to the Australian public
and politicians. At present, CO2CRC, cLET, CCSD and CSIRO all have extensive communi-
cations activities underway in the area of clean energy. It is perhaps notable that the Australian
House of Representatives is currently conducting an Inquiry into Geosequestration.

The economics of CO2 capture and geological storage

The cost of a geosequestration project is site- and process-specific. For example, where the
primary emission stream is CO2-rich and the storage site nearby, the cost of mitigation is
likely to be no more than a few dollars a tonne CO2. If, however, the emission is low in CO2
and the storage site is hundreds of kilometres away then the cost could be A$100 or more a
tonne of CO2, and therefore probably non-viable economically compared to other mitigation
options. As pointed out earlier, the cost of capture from a conventional coal-fired power
Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage 739
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

Figure 4. Potential cost of Australian geological storage projects (after Allinson, [17]).

station is likely to constitute 7080% of the total cost of geosequestration. By comparison,


the cost of CO2 capture associated with gas processing or cement manufacture or a coal-to-
liquids storage, is likely to be only a small proportion of the total cost of the geosequestration
project. A study of the likely cost of CO2 storage-only projects in Australia (figure 4)
indicated a wide range of capital and operational costs, driven primarily by the distance
between the source of the CO2 and the storage site, but with many potential storage projects
costing US$10 or less per tonne of CO2 avoided [17,18]. Not surprisingly, costs of onshore
projects are significantly less than the cost of offshore projects.
The IPCC [2] examined the issue of geosequestration costs in some detail, but it is difficult
Figure 4. Potential cost of Australian geological storage projects (after Allinson, [17]).

to compare these costs directly with Australian costs for various reasons, including the coun-
try-specific cost of equipment, currency variations and the local cost of electricity. But there
is general agreement on two points: that the cost of geosequestration probably needs to be of
the order of A$2030 (US$1523) a tonne CO2 avoided for it to be widely deployed and that
the costs need to come down from their present level of A$70 (US$53) or more a tonne. Will
the costs come down? Based on the evidence provided by other comparable technologies the
answer is yes, particularly in the capture area. In the transport and storage areas there is less
scope for price reduction because of the maturity of these technologies, with the main oppor-
tunity for price reduction resting with economies of scale.
The CO2CRC has undertaken research into low-emission hubs in Australia, as a way of
achieving economies of scale. These are regions with high concentrations of emission
sources which can potentially adopt a coordinated approach to decreasing CO2 emissions.
Areas in Australia which offer scope for this approach include the Latrobe Valley in Victoria,
Kwinnana and the Burrup Peninsular in WA, the Sydney-Newcastle region in NSW, south-
east Queensland and the Gladstone-Rockhampton district of central Queensland (figure 3).
A low-emission hub approach (figure 5) would require capturing CO2 from a mixed gas
stream from a variety of sources. Industrial processes most suited could include electric
740 P. J. Cook
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

Figure 5. Low-emission vision for the future.

power generation, natural gas processing, furnaces, boilers, aluminium smelters, cement
kilns and sugar mills. If a number of these were brought together then economies of scale
could be achieved. The cost estimate of a hub configuration by CO2CRC has been based on
engineering estimates of the size and number of different pieces of hardware and equipment
and the number and type of injection wells. It also involves estimates of the unit costs of
equipment, services and drilling, which depend on current drilling rig rates and the type of
equipment and hardware and their unit costs.
As is the case with any large scale construction project, the costs of equipment and
Figure 5. Low-emission vision for the future.

services are subject to significant uncertainty and change over time because of market forces.
Costs are usually expressed in dollars per tonne of CO2 avoided. CO2 avoided is the amount
of CO2 that would be emitted before geosequestration less the amount of CO2 emitted after
geosequestration has been applied. In other words it represents the amount of CO2 saved or
the reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.
The costs can vary significantly depending on the situation. CO2CRC has produced
preliminary central estimates of the costs of a low-emission hub composed of four large
sources of CO2 in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria [19]. Cost estimates are given in table 2 and
are based on a project of 40 years duration and a Gippsland Basin (figure 6) storage capacity
of two billion tonnes CO2 (in fact the storage capacity of the Gippsland Basin is probably six
billion tonnes CO2 or more).
These indicative costs of a large regional geosequestration hub in Australia are in line with
Figure 6. CO2 injection scheme modelled for the Latrobe Valley CO2 Storage Assessment.

cost estimates made by researchers in other countries. Cost will depend on the industrial
processes involved and are subject to large uncertainties. They exclude the effects of any
taxes that might apply to projects. The costs set out in table 2 are for Australian conditions
using current technologies.
There are good grounds for expecting the costs of capturing CO2 to fall in the future as
technological improvements are made. The 2005 IPCC Special Volume [2] states Over the
next decade the cost of capture could be reduced by 20%30% and more should be
Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage 741
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

Figure 6. CO2 injection scheme modelled for the Latrobe Valley CO2 Storage Assessment.

achievable by new technologies that are still in the research or demonstration phase (p. 16).
Assuming a 30% reduction and given that capture costs are a significant portion of the total
costs of geosequestration, we might expect that the average costs of geosequestration in the
Latrobe Valley region of Victoria will fall to A$30 per tonne CO2 or less. Individual
processes producing relatively pure CO2 (such as CTL) would have significantly lower total
mitigation costs [5].
The IPCC Special Volume [2] states Inclusion of CCS in a mitigation portfolio is found to
reduce the cost of stabilising CO2 concentration (in the atmosphere) by 30% or more. There
is currently a great deal of interest in Australia in the cost of geosequestration, but in the
absence of a price on carbon it is difficult to set a dollar value on that 30% reduction or on the
economic benefits to be derived from geosequestration generally.
A number of Australian States are currently seeking to put an Emissions Trading Scheme
in place. For example, the State of Victoria has recently announced a trading scheme (VRET)
that has a 2006 imputed price of A$43 (US$33) a tonne of carbon dioxide. Bureau of
Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) modelling uses a carbon price of US$5999
a tonne of CO2. Allen Consulting estimates a potential benefit to Australia of A$50 trillion by
adopting a lower carbon future, and economic modelling by the Australian Business Round-
table on Climate Change suggests that early action to decrease emissions will be worth A$2
trillion to the Australian economy by 2050.

Table 2. Summary of CO2CRC cost estimates for a regional geosequestration project [5].

Capital costs A$2914 million (2005)


Operating costs A$290298 million per year (2005)
Annual CO2 injected 15 million tonnes per year
CO2 injection period 40 years
Cost per tonne CO2 avoided A$38/tonne
742 P. J. Cook

Studies into geosequestration in Australia are an essential part of risk minimization,


recognising that a future price on carbon, or being required to deploy expensive low emission
technology, could have a profound impact on the profitability of a company, on the value of
exports and on the Australian economy in general. Government and industry recognise that
geosequestration has a major potential role to play, because it could enable Australia (and
other countries) to continue to use much of the existing energy infrastructure (including
access to cost effective fossil fuels) yet make deep cuts in emissions.
Whether the cost of deployment of geosequestration in Australia will be higher or lower
than that of other future mitigation options depends on:

The location of the facility;


Nature of the facility;
Whether the emission stream is concentrated or dilute CO2;
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

In the case of power generation whether or not it is required to be base-load;


The extent to which future technology developments bring down costs;
Whether or not a price signal or mandatory target is applied.

These factors and others will determine what proportion of Australias future mitigation
effort is likely to rest on geosequestration, but under many scenarios, geosequestration is
likely to be a cost-effective option, particularly for base-load power, gas separation, CTL and
other processes that produce a CO2-rich emission stream.
CO2CRC and other organizations have set a target of around A$20 a tonne of CO2 avoided
for capture, transport and storage. What does this mean in terms of future energy costs (a key
issue for politicians and their electorates)? That depends on where one is in the electricity
chain. For example, a mitigation cost of A$20 a tonne CO2 translates into an increase in
electricity cost at the generator (the wholesale price) of the order of 50%; this in turn leads to
an electricity cost increase of 2530% for the retail customer and 1520% for the domestic
customer. Since Australia has relatively low electricity costs by world standards, such a price
rise may (or may not) be acceptable to the domestic consumer but would obviously have a
significant impact on the major consumer who produces an energy-intensive product (such as
aluminium) that sells on world markets.
Australia has a very large storage capacity adequate for continuing storage of
Australias CO2 emissions for hundreds of years [20,21]. The areas with the greatest
known storage capacities in saline formations occur off Victoria [22], Western Australia
[23,24] and probably the NT (figures 3, 6). There is also likely to be significant onshore
storage capacity in parts of Queensland [25] and northeast South Australia. The least
known state in terms of storage capacity and the one with the greatest storage need is
New South Wales. The reason for this uncertainty is that the geology is complex and in
part characterized by low porosities and permeabilities. But a primary difficulty arises
because there has been little oil exploration in NSW and consequently we know virtually
nothing about the deep geology of the State. For example the basin known as the
Sydney Basin extends offshore where there may (or may not) be significant storage
capacity but it lies offshore of some of the largest CO2 emission sources, suggesting that
there is real benefit at the state and national level in better understanding this Basin both
offshore and onshore. More detailed work is necessary to characterize fully Australian
storage sites and this is now underway by CO2CRC, but our preliminary assessments
suggest that most major emission nodes will have adequate storage capacity located
within 200500 km.
Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage 743

Demonstrating geosequestration

To date there has been no demonstration of capture or storage technology at a commercially


significant scale. This will change over the next few years as research projects and the
governments $500 million Low Emission Technology Development Fund (with matching
industry and State funds of A$1 billion) comes into place in mid-2007. A number of
examples of proposed demonstration and commercial projects are provided below, but more
are starting to emerge as the successful LETDF applications become known.

Gasification
It is the aim of cLET to establish a national low emissions gasification research facility. This
would be a 5 MW, national low emission gasification research and test facility for black coal
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

(see earlier).

Post-combustion capture
Currently, Australian infrastructure investment in pulverized fuel (PF) fired power stations is
over A$40 billion. These facilities have a forecast operational life of 50 years and by 2020,
38 gigawatts of old PF capacity will remain in use.
In cooperation with industry, CSIRO has proposed a PCC demonstration project that is
planned to run for five years. Step reductions in CO2 emissions, by economical capture from
PF stations, is essential in order to avoid massive stranded (unusable) assets. The Energy
Transformed Flagship believes PCC can achieve this outcome, given the level of commit-
ment it is making to research and development activities. Discussions are also underway
including CO2CRC, other research and industry groups aimed at developing PCC demon-
stration and commercial applications for black and brown coal options.

Otway Basin Project


The CO2CRC will undertake a large scale demonstration of geological storage of CO2 in the
Otway Basin of Western Victoria, with injection of up to 100,000 tonnes CO2 [15]. Already
the Centre has spent several million dollars purchasing petroleum tenements and characteriz-
ing the site and has obtained funding from Federal and State bodies and industry. The project
will have a total cost in excess of A$35 million (US$26 million). A large number of resource
companies, CO2CRC research collaborators, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories and
the Alberta Research Council are participating in the project.
In summary the proposed Otway Basin Pilot Project (OBPP) involves CO2 production
from a natural gas well; transport by pipeline; injection into a deep porous/permeable geolog-
ical formation overlain by an impermeable seal and the monitoring and verification (M&V)
of the behaviour of the stored CO2-rich gas (figure 7). Unseparated gas will be injected for
six months in the first phase of the project. In the second phase the CO2 will be separated and
purified to 97% CO2 and then injected. Up to 100,000 tonnes of CO2 will be injected until
2009 and monitoring will continue until mid 2010. Involvement of federal and state regula-
tors, extensive community engagement and communication will be key features.
At least one new injection well will be drilled to approximately 2000 metres; a second will
Figure 7. Schematic representation of the Otway Basin Project of CO2CRC.

be drilled for additional monitoring if funds allow. A comprehensive and integrated monitoring
system will be implemented for the protection of the environment and to determine the
744 P. J. Cook
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

Figure 7. Schematic representation of the Otway Basin Project of CO2CRC.

behaviour of stored CO2 [26,27]. The Project will be one of the most comprehensive of its type
in the world. Already CO2CRC has undertaken extensive baseline monitoring, wells have been
logged and the CO2 source secured; CO2 injection is expected to commence in mid-2007.

ZeroGen
The Stanwell Corporation, a Queensland based power company, recently announced its
ZeroGen demonstration project in Central Queensland (www.zerogen.com.au) to investigate
the viability of integrating coal-based gasification and carbon capture and geological storage
to produce low emission base-load electricity. Stanwell proposes to combine both coal-based
gasification and geological storage in deep saline formations at a commercial scale. A
feasibility study is currently underway to investigate the economic, environmental, social,
regulatory and technical considerations of this demonstration facility. As part of the feasibil-
ity study, ZeroGens CO2 test well program includes the drilling of three wells up to two
kilometres deep to test storing CO2 in deep saline formations in the Dennison Trough of
Central Queensland.

Monash Project
The Monash Energy Project is planned to be the worlds first Coal to Liquids CTL project
incorporating geological storage (www.monashenergy.com.au). The CRC GEODISC
program identified the exceptional combination of world-class storage resource of the
offshore Gippsland Basin in proximity to one of the worlds major brown coal resources in
the Latrobe Valley. The Monash Energy Project proposes to use coal gasification in combi-
nation with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and geosequestration for the low-emissions production
of a range of transport fuels initially ultra-low sulphur diesel, but ultimately hydrogen to
support the longer term development of a hydrogen economy.
Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage 745

The project will process brown coal from Victorias Latrobe Valley, in the onshore
Gippsland Basin, and will transport and store the CO2 produced in the process beneath the
depleting oil fields of the offshore Gippsland Basin (figure 6).
The first stage Commercial Plant will produce about 60,000 barrels per day of synthetic
hydrocarbon liquids of which 80% would be ultra low sulphur high quality automotive
diesel. Commissioning of the plant is targeted for 2016. The Project will compress approxi-
mately 13 million tonnes of super-critical CO2 per year, for transport via pipeline to store
offshore, deep beneath the depleting oilfields. A CO2CRC study [22] has confirmed the
potential for the offshore Gippsland Basin to provide secure, low-cost storage for two billion
tonnes of CO2, injected at a rate of 50 million tones per annum to a depth of approximately
three kilometres (figure 6).
The project has the potential to act as the catalyst for the development of geosequestration
infrastructure to support the subsequent capture of CO2 from electricity generation in the
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

Latrobe Valley when more cost-effective technologies have been developed to capture CO2
from power stations and for this reason the Victorian Government intends to support the
concept of a regional hub.

Gorgon Project
The Gorgon project (www.gorgon.com.au) of Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil plans to
develop the Greater Gorgon gas fields, located between 130 km and 200 km off the coast of
Western Australia [4]. The gas fields contain about 40 trillion cubic feet of gas, Australias
largest known undeveloped gas resource. But the natural gas contains up to 14% CO2, which
is stripped out as part of LNG processing. The Gorgon project proposal includes a two-train,
10 million metric-ton-per-year liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant and a domestic gas plant on
Barrow Island.
The Gorgon Project will be the first commercial project in Australia to use geosequestra-
tion. The geological storage target is the Dupuy Formation located around 2000m beneath
Barrow Island [4]. The total amount of reservoir CO2 to be re-injected is about 100 million
tonnes. The proposed injection site was selected to maximize the CO2 migration distance
from major faults and limit environmental disturbance. Once the CO2 is injected into the
subsurface, it will move through the host reservoir, driven by the injection pressure and buoy-
ancy until it becomes trapped. Monitoring is an integral component of the proposal, compris-
ing routine observation of injection rates and surface pressures at the injection wells, pressure
and saturation measurements at observation wells and large-scale plume migration via
repeated surface seismic measurements. A data well has recently been drilled through the
Dupuy Formation. The project is expected to be implemented around 2010, with injection
commencing around 2011, subject to economic and technical feasibility.

OxyFuel Project
Eleven Australian and Japanese organizations have formed a consortium to develop a demon-
stration oxy-fuel combustion plant, with CO2 capture and geological storage, based on CS
Energys Callide A power station in central Queensland (www.csenergy.com.au). This
project will be the first of its kind in Australia. The project has two stages. The first stage
involves a detailed engineering feasibility study on the technical requirements and costs to
convert an existing pulverised coal-fired boiler (Callide As 30 megawatt unit) to oxy-firing.
The second stage will be the establishment of a demonstration plant capable of producing up
746 P. J. Cook

to 150,000 tonnes per year of CO2 for geological storage over a test period of three to four
years commencing in 2008.

Future directions for Australia

The high level of geosequestration research and development activity in Australia is likely to
rise further. This is not surprising given the importance of the topic to Australia. What is now
also needed is to accelerate the demonstration and deployment phase, and the LETDF
scheme will help to do this.
The demonstration of CO2 capture is in part dependent on overseas technology develop-
ments, although there are some particular features of Australian electricity generation, such
as its abundant use of lignites and its lack of SOx and NOx mitigation (Australian coals are
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

generally low in sulphur) which will require specific consideration. Geological storage is
very much site-specific and whilst there are generic lessons to be learned from Sleipner, In
Salah or Weyburn, deployment is dependent on the geology of the site. This inevitably raises
issues regarding regulation and also the extent to which the technology will be acceptable to
the community. Communication activities by various Australian organizations will help to
resolve this issue.
There are regulatory and approval issues relating to geosequestration in Australia. Some of
these issues may have an international dimension, if geological storage occurs offshore.
Australia, through the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR), the
Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) and bodies such as the International Energy Agency
(IEA) and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), has played a leading role in
considering international regulatory, licensing and environmental issues. The recent modifi-
cation to the London Protocol to allow offshore geological storage will serve to clarify the
legal context and act as a stimulus to consideration of this mitigation option.
A significant proportion of Australias storage potential lies within the Continental Shelf or
Extended Continental Shelf and therefore is largely under Federal jurisdiction. Australia has
produced guidelines relating to capture and geological storage [28] and legal principles are
being asserted [29]. Federal Departments and State bodies are actively looking at the relevant
issues including those posed by CO2 moving across jurisdictions, for example, CO2 emissions
that are generated onshore (under State legislation) being geologically stored offshore (under
Federal legislation). The current approach proposed is to use the offshore petroleum legislation
as a basis for geosequestration licensing and regulation. This is a sensible and practical approach.
There will be issues relating to overlap of petroleum tenements and CO2 storage tenements but
there should be no insurmountable barriers to resolving such issues provided a risk-based
approach is taken. The deployment of geosequestration onshore will be largely a State issue,
although obviously Federal environmental or other issues may also impact on occasions.
The issue of long-term liability has yet to be clarified. There is general acceptance that the
company (or operator) using the storage site will have liability during the operational phase.
But after closure and confirmation of the stability of the system, who is the holder of long-
term liability? Since there is long term community benefit in mitigating CO2 emissions
through geosequestration, it would seem entirely appropriate for government to take on the
associated long-term liability. Indeed, there is no other obvious option. It is significant that
the State of Texas has recently announced that if FutureGen (a major USA geosequestration
project) is sited in Texas, the state will take on long-term liability, which may provide an
important precedent for Australian states.
Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage 747

Obviously long-term liability issues will need to be resolved, but the work to date in devel-
oping a regulatory regime, Australias dependence on fossil fuels for power generation and
its abundance of storage sites in many areas, coupled with the body of science and technol-
ogy expertise and the active encouragement of Federal and State governments suggest that
Australia is likely to become an early mover in the implementation of carbon dioxide capture
and geological storage. The sceptics point to Australias lack of a carbon price or a national
emissions trading scheme in Australia and ask why any company would implement it in the
current climate. But governments have the power to require geosequestration as part of the
approvals process for a project, and already there are examples of this in Australia.
CO2CRC has undertaken modelling of the potential global impact of geosequestration
[30,31], using as its starting point the IPCC IS92 and SRES projections [32]. Our work
strongly supports the view that geosequestration can have a major impact on emissions. By
way of example, use of the IS92a projections (which presumes very extensive use of renew-
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

ables, nuclear and energy efficiency) produces a CO2 concentration of 712 ppm by the year
2100, or far above the range of 450550 ppm that is considered desirable. Our modelling
suggests that the global deployment of geosequestration could bring that down to 550 ppm by
2100. To achieve this there are several steps necessary at the global level:

A very intensive period of research, development and demonstration between now and
2015 to bring down the costs of geosequestration;
From 2015 onwards, all new power stations would be equipped with low emission tech-
nology including geosequestration. Over the subsequent 40 years all existing power
stations would be phased out to be replaced with low emission power generation;
Additionally it is proposed that from 2035 onwards, low emission transportation, based on
geosequestration-enabled hydrogen or electricity generation, would be progressively
introduced over the subsequent 20 years;
By 2055, all electricity generation and transportation would be zero emission through the
deployment of geosequestration.

Could steps be taken to implement low-emission technologies in Australia and elsewhere


before 2015? Yes, in some circumstances [33,34] it will be possible to identify low hanging
fruit relating mainly to processes that produce high CO2 concentrations, for example, gas
processing, or in specific cases where there may be incentives such as enhanced oil recovery.
The larger target of power generation is not implementable on a significant scale much before
2015 unless there are major breakthroughs in post-combustion capture technologies.
There is no doubt that these proposed measures will be very difficult to implement globally,
but together with the very extensive use of renewables and nuclear and greater energy efficiency
(incorporated in the IS92 and SRES models) would result in an atmospheric CO2 concentration
of 550 ppm by 2100. But to achieve this, we must start down this road now. There is no time
to spare if we are to have commercially viable geosequestration systems in place by 2015. This
sort of message coming from government would provide a very powerful impetus to industry.
Care must be taken, during this period, to balance the need for early action with realistic tech-
nology expectations. It is also important for industry and the community to be made aware that
this is the path forward, so that there is adequate time to introduce the technology and absorb
costs. Implementation must aim to be global, but it would be unrealistic to expect every country
to adopt precisely the same timescale. Nonetheless, all must agree on a target such as 550ppm
by 2100. Implementation of geosequestration, along with other measures, appears to offer a
better way forward than the Kyoto Protocol currently seems to offer.
748 P. J. Cook

In conclusion, Australia is a major producer and user of fossil fuels. A range of mitigation
measures will be required by Australia, including greater energy efficiency, switching to
lower carbon intensity fuels, greater use of renewables and geosequestration to reduce its
CO2 emissions. Geosequestration is not a silver bullet but it does have the potential to
enable Australia and other nations to make deep cuts in emissions. Australia also has the
potential to become an early adopter of geosequestration.

Acknowledgements
I thank my colleagues in CO2CRC for their contributions to this paper, in particular Barry
Hooper, John Kaldi, Lee-Anne Shepherd and Robin Shortt.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

References
[1] UNFCCC, 1992, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNEP/IUC, Switzerland, 30 p.
[2] IPCC, 2005, IPCC Special Report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Prepared by Working Group III of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos and L.A.
Meyer, Eds) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 442 pp.
[3] Torp, T.A. and Gale, J., 2003, Demonstrating storage of CO2 in geological reservoirs: the Sleipner and SACS
projects, in: J. Gale and Y. Kaya (Eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies (GHGT-6), 14 October 2002, Kyoto, Japan (Amsterdam: Pergamon), v.I, pp. 311316.
[4] Malek, R., Bartlett, R. and Evan, B., 2004, A technical appraisal of storage of Gorgon CO2 at Barrow Island,
Northwest Shelf. APPEA Journal, 44, 639646.
[5] Hooper, B., Koppe, B. and Murray, L., 2006, Commercial and technical issues for large-scale carbon capture
and storage projects: a Gippsland Basin study. APPEA Journal, 46, 435444.
[6] Davis, A., 2005, Tackling climate change: a pathway towards a zero emissions future. Queensland Mining
Journal, 103, no. 1218.
[7] Campbell, D. and Balfe, P., 2006, CCSD Value for Stakeholders: A Review of the Investment Performance and
Prospects for CCSD (Brisbane: Acil Tasman), 63 pp.
[8] Franco, J., Perera, J., Stevens, G. and Kentish, S., 2006, Membrane gas absorption using a chemically modified
polypropylene membrane, in: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, 1922 June 2006 Norway: Trondheim).
[9] Ho, M.T., Leamon, G., Allinson, G. and Wiley, D.E., 2006, Economics of CO2 and mixed gas geosequestra-
tion of flue gas using gas separation membranes. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 45,
pp. 25462552.
[10] Ho, M.T., Allinson, G. and Wiley, D.E., 2006, Comparison of CO2 separation options for geo-sequestration:
are membranes competitive? Desalination, 192(13), pp. 288295.
[11] Chaffee, A., Knowles, G., Liang, Z., Delaney, S., Graham, J., Zhang, J., Xiao, P. and Webley, P., 2006, CO2
capture by adsorption: materials and process development, in: Proceedings of the Eighth International
Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 1922 June 2006 (Norway: Trondheim), 6pp.
[12] Cook, P.J., Rigg, A. and Bradshaw, J., 2000, Putting it back where it came from: is geological disposal of
carbon dioxide an option for Australia. APPEA Journal, 1, 634666.
[13] Ennis-King, J. and Paterson, L., Role of convective mixing in the long-term storage of carbon dioxide in deep
saline formations. SPE Journal, 10, pp. 349356.
[14] Faiz, M.M., Barclay, S.A., Sherwood, N., Stalker, L., Saghafi, A., Whitford, D.J., 2006, Natural accumulation of
CO2 in coals from the southern Sydney Basin: implications for geosequestration. APPEA Journal, 46, 455474.
[15] Sharma, S., 2006. Regulatory challenges and managing public perception in planning a geological storage pilot
project in Australia, in: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, 1922 June 2006 (Norway: Trondheim).
[16] Bowden, A.R. and Rigg, A.J., 2004, Assessing risk in CO2 storage projects. APPEA Journal, 44, 677702.
[17] Allinson, W.G. and Nguyen, D., 2002, CO2 geological storage economies, in: Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-6), 14 October 2002 (Kyoto:
Pergamon), p. 3.
[18] Allinson, W.G., Nguyen, D.N. and Bradshaw, J., 2003, The economics of geological storage of CO2 in
Australia. APPEA Journal, 43, 623.
[19] Neal, P.R., Ho, M.T., Dunsmore, R.E., Allinson, G. and McKee, G.A., 2006, The economics of carbon capture
and storage in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia, in: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference
on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 1922 June 2006 (Norway: Trondheim).
Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage 749

[20] Rigg, A., Allinson, G., Bradshaw, J., Ennis-King, J., Gibson-Poole, C.M., Hillis, R.R., Lang, S.C. and Streit,
J.E., 2001, The search for sites for geological sequestration of CO2 in Australia: a progress report on
GEODISC. APPEA Journal, 41, 711725.
[21] Bradshaw, J., Bradshaw, B.E., Allinson, G., Rigg, A.J., Nguyen, V. and Spencer, L., 2002, The potential for
geological sequestration of CO2 in Australia: preliminary findings and implications to new gas field develop-
ment. APPEA Journal, 42(1), 2546.
[22] Gibson-Poole, C.M., Svendsen, L., Underschultz, J., Watson, M.N., Ennis-King, J., van Ruth, P.J., Nelson,
E.J., Daniel, R.F. and Cinar, Y., 2006, Gippsland Basin geosequestration: a potential solution for the Latrobe
Valley brown coal CO2 emissions. APPEA Journal, 46, pp. 413433.
[23] Gibson-Poole, C.M., Lang, S.C., Streit, J.E., Kraishan, G.M. and Hillis, R.R., 2002, Assessing a basins poten-
tial for geological sequestration of carbon dioxide: an example from the Mesozoic of the Petrel Sub-basin, NW
Australia, in: M. Keep and S.J. Moss (Eds) The Sedimentary Basins of Western Australia 3, Proceedings of the
Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia Symposium, Perth Western Australia, 2002, pp. 439463.
[24] Ennis-King, J., Gibson-Poole, C.M., Lang, S.C. and Paterson, L., 2003, Long term numerical simulation of
geological storage of CO2 in the Petrel sub-basin, North West Australia, in: J. Gale and Y. Kaya (Eds)
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-6), 14
October 2002 (Kyoto, Japan: Pergamon), vol. I, pp. 507511.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 23:42 01 May 2015

[25] Sayers, J., Marsh, C., Scott, A., Cinar, Y., Bradshaw, J., Hennig, A., Barclay, S., and Daniel, R, 2006,
Assessment of a potential storage site for carbon dioxide: a case study, southeast Queensland, Australia.
Environmental Geosciences, 13(2), 123142.
[26] Etheridge, D., Leuning, R., Van der Schoot, M., Dunse, B., Allison, C., Fraser, P.J. and Dodds, K., 2005, The
use of baseline atmospheric composition data to verify geological storage of CO2, in: J.M. Cainey and N.
Derek (Eds) Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station Annual Science Meeting (Abstracts) (Aspendale,
Victoria: Bureau of Meteorology; CSIRO), p. 36.
[27] Dodds, K., Sherlock, D., Urosevic, M., Etheridge, D., de Vries, D. and Sharma, S., 2006, Developing a moni-
toring and verification scheme for a pilot project, Otway Basin, Australia, in: Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 1922 June 2006 (Norway: Trondheim).
[28] Ministerial Council, 2005, Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage: Australian regulatory guiding
principles. Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources (Canberra), 64pp
[29] Warburton, A.M., Grove, J.A., and Then, S., 2006, Geosequestration: a solution for Australia? APPEA
Journal, 46, 445454.
[30] Beck, B., 2005, Potential for global application of geosequestration as a mitigation option. CO2CRC Report
RPTO5-003 (Canberra), 58pp.
[31] Cook, P.J., 2006, Geoscience, society, energy and greenhouse. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Gesellschaft Geowis-
senschaften, 157(1), 916.
[32] SRES, 2000, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, in: N. Nakicenovic et al., Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
ca[eu]t ca[eu]t

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).


[33] Dooley, J.J., Dahowski, R.T., Davidson, C.L., Wise, M.A., Gupta, N., Kim, S.H. and Malone, E.L., 2006,
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage: A Core Element of a Global Energy Strategy to Address
Climate Change (College Park, MD: Battelle), 67pp.
[34] IEA, 2004, The Prospects for CO2 Capture and Storage (Paris: IEA).

You might also like