Global Technology Roadmap For CCS in Refineries

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Global Technology Roadmap for CCS

in Industry
Sectoral Assessment: Refineries
Report No./DNV Reg No.: / 12P5TPP-9

Draft Rev 3, 2010-08-25
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Research Report for UNIDO
Global Technology Roadmap for CCS in Industry
MANAGING RISK
SUMMARY
This report provides an overview of the potential application of carbon capture and storage technologies to
refineries. It describes the industry today, including its CO2 emissions and goes on to analyse various ways
in which CO2 capture technology could be applied. It looks at legislative influences, costs and concludes
by identifying challenges and recommended next steps. Transport and storage aspects of CCS are only
touched upon as they are common with other industries.
At best, the refining of conventional crude will grow slowly, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, as
predicted by OPEC in the decades out to 2050. However in the IEA BLUE map scenario which is
considered to offer the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of predictions for the refining industry, the
industry may shrink considerably over the same period, as demand decays and conventional liquid fuels
are replaced by non-conventional sources. Non-conventional sources include natural gas liquids (NGLs),
gas to liquids (GTLs), coal to liquids (CTLs) and biofuels. It is likely that the emission intensity of the
refining industry will increase during this period due to the use of heavier crudes and tighter specifications
for product quality. Despite this, in the long term to 2050 there is also the possibility that absolute
emissions may decline because the outlook for the refining industry is uncertain: Non-conventional fuels
pose a real threat to supply of conventional liquids and hence refining in the short term and climate
abatement policy will play a role. In the period up to 2030, it is likely that any growth in the refining
sector will be in the Middle East and Non-OECD Asia-Pacific with little in Europe and North America.
Transport related emissions including refining in China, India and rest of world including Middle East,
Africa and Latin America have potential to grow to 2050, hence there is potential for greenfield CCS
deployment in refineries of these regions. In the same period to 2050 more established markets such as the
OECD, potential CCS deployment may be for retrofit of existing refineries.
CCS is a technology that offers carbon abatement for the combustion of fossil fuels. In the refining
industry perspective, it is unclear how much of a role it will play in the long term (to 2030) due to the
comparably high cost of capture, tight refining margins and multiple different CO2 sources on a refining
site. Adding to this uncertainty are major studies such as the Energy Technology Perspectives and
Technology Roadmap for CCS from the IEA, which do not specify the role of CCS in the refining sector.
There are, however, existing publicly funded demonstration projects underway in the sector, such as those
at Mongstad, Rotterdam, Port Arthur and Edmonton. McKinsey and Company suggest CCS will be an
appropriate technology for carbon abatement in oil and gas sectors of Western Europe and North America
to 2030.
Of the CCS technologies, post-combustion technology offers potential for refineries in the near future.
However, in the longer term and as these technologies develop; other promising technologies may develop
for lower cost deployment: Hydrogen production using either heavy residue gasification or steam methane
reforming with chemical absorption separation produces a high purity CO2 stream that seems to be the
lowest cost capture option at ~€30/tCO2 avoided. The cost of CO2 capture will be greater for refineries
producing high purity hydrogen using pressure swing absorption, because the CO2 produced requires
further processing to reach economic specifications required for transport and storage. The energy penalty
resulting from capture is a major influence on the avoided cost of CO2 capture, as is the space requirement
for capture and transport technology on a refinery site. Post combustion technology exists for heaters,
boilers, fluid catalytic crackers and utilities, but at much higher costs (>€80/tCO2 avoided). Oxy-firing
technology is a promising technology but lags post combustion technology in that it remains untested on
the scales required for commercial deployment. Pre-combustion technology also has potential in a refinery
because of the smaller CO2 sources, but again the development of this technology lags post-combustion.
Although not a focus of this assessment, transport and storage have a large influence on the cost of the
CCS chain and are specific to each site. Given that the absolute amount of CO2 emitted is smaller than
DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page ii
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
from power stations, CCS for refineries could benefit from the scale economy of CO2 transport and
storage network infrastructure.
In conclusion, the outlook for CCS in the refining industry is mixed. Technology exists that could be
deployed, but cost and complexity is a barrier for capture at most point sources on a refinery, with capture
on certain hydrogen production processes being the notable exception of limited materiality. Policy that
could to lead CCS in the refining sector has the potential to also reduce the demand for transport fuels, and
reduce the output and emissions from the refining sector. Supporting CCS in the refining sector would
have to include support for new technologies that could substantially reduce the deployment costs for
many units of a refinery. Planned publicly funded CCS demonstrations at a number of sites around the
world are a step towards this. The longer term outlook to 2050 for the refining sector on the whole is even
less certain with demand for liquid fuels potentially being eroded by use of non-conventional sources and
carbon abatement policy.
Notwithstanding the uncertain future for the refining industry on the whole there are measures that have
potential to overcome the barriers to CCS deployment in the refining sector and reduce uncertainty. A
comprehensive emissions inventory can be developed and standard methodologies for calculating
emissions universally accepted. This will could either include or lead to characterisation of the unique
emissions of each unit operation. As an outcome, emissions abatement with lower cost than CCS could be
identified and addressed to reduce potential capture inventories. There is also existing information and
experience for CCS and related processes specific to the refinery sector, which could be consolidated and
disseminated globally. On top of this commercial demonstration of CCS technology in a refining setting
could also help reduce the uncertainty.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page iii
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REFINING SECTOR..............................................................1

2.1 Outlook for Refining Sector ...................................................................................................4
2.2 Refining Industry interest in CCS...........................................................................................6
3 CURRENT AND PROJECTED EMISSIONS .............................................................................8

3.1 Historic Emissions and Uncertainty........................................................................................8
3.2 Projected Emissions ................................................................................................................9
4 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY ................................................11

4.1 Process Heaters .....................................................................................................................12
4.2 Utilities..................................................................................................................................15
4.3 Fluid Catalytic Cracker .........................................................................................................17
4.4 Hydrogen Production............................................................................................................18
4.5 Carbon abatement options other than CCS for the refining sector .......................................19
5 ESTIMATED COSTS AND INVESTMENTS ...........................................................................22

5.1 General CCS costs ................................................................................................................22
5.2 Refinery Specific Costs ........................................................................................................22
5.3 Financing CCS ......................................................................................................................24
6 LEGISLATIVE PRESSURES ON REFINERY CARBON EMISSIONS ...............................24

6.1 Transport Fuel Quality Legislation.......................................................................................25
6.2 IMO MARPOL Fuel Specification Changes ........................................................................25
6.3 Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) ..............................................................................26
6.4 Emissions Trading Schemes .................................................................................................27
6.5 Carbon Leakage Mechanisms ...............................................................................................27
7 CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................28
7.1 Major Gaps and Barriers to Implementation.........................................................................29
7.2 Actions and Milestones.........................................................................................................30
8 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................32

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page iv
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
ABBREVIATIONS
API – American Petroleum Institute
bbl – Barrel of oil
bbl/d – Barrels of oil per day
BREF – Best Available Technology Reference Document
CAPEX – Capital Expenditure
CAP – Chilled Ammonia Process
CCP – CO2 Capture Project
CDM – Clean Development Mechanism
CCS – Carbon Capture and Storage
CHP – Combined Heat and Power Generation
CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
CTL – Coal to Liquids
EERP – European Economic Recovery Program
EIPPCB – European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau
ETS – Emissions Trading Scheme
EU – European Union
EU ETS – European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
EU NER300 – European Union New Entrants Reserve allocation of 300 million carbon credits
FCC – Fluidised Catalytic Cracker
GHG – Greenhouse Gas
GTL – Gas to Liquids
H2 – Hydrogen
HCC – Hydro Catalytic Cracker
HDT – Hydro-treating unit
IEAGHG – International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Programme
IEA – International Energy Agency
IMO – International Maritime Organization
IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change
IPIECA – International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association
MARPOL – Marine Pollution
Mbbl/d – Million barrels of oil per day
MDEA - Methyldiethanolamine

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page v
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
MEA – Monoethanolamine
MtCO2 – Million tonnes of CO2
NGL – Natural Gas Liquids
NOx – Oxides of Nitrogen
NPRA – National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
LPG – Liquefied Petroleum Gas
OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OPEC – Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
ppm – Parts per million
PSA – Pressure Swing Absorption
RCI – Rotterdam Climate Initiative
SCR – Selective Catalytic Reduction
SECA – SOx Emissions Control Area’s
SMR – Steam Methane Reforming
SOx – Oxides of Sulphur
TCM – European CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad
UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNIDO – United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UK – United Kingdom
US – United States of America
US DOE – United States of America Department of Energy
WPC – World Petroleum Council

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page vi
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
1 INTRODUCTION
Crude oil refineries are responsible for the separation and processing of crude oil to make more
valuable petroleum products such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), naphtha, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel
fuel, and. heating oil. Modern refineries have a range of integrated processes such as distillation,
reforming, cracking and hydrotreating, all of which require significant heat input via fuel combustion.
The fuel utilized in the process heaters, reactors and steam boilers comprise of petroleum coke,
process (still) gas, petroleum fuels and natural gas (Rootzen et al. 2009).
CO2 emissions from refineries reportedly account for about 6% of global stationary CO2 emissions
(IPCC, 2005) or nearly 1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (IEAGHG, 2008). However, these figures are
widely debated and are the topic of further discussion later in this assessment. According to van
Straelen et al. (2009), a typical large-scale (300,000 barrel per day) refinery will produce between 0.8
and 4.2 million tCO2/y. Energy use and CO2 emissions vary depending on processed crude, extent of
processing, and quality and composition of the product mix.
This assessment will be used as a basis for drafting a CCS roadmap for industrial processes, including
refineries, and will form the basis for identifying the steps that need to be undertaken to expand
industrial CCS from where it is today to 2050, to help achieve global GHG emission reduction
targets. The assessment will include a status of the technology in the refining sector as well as the
trends and prospects for deployment of CCS in developing regions out to 2050. The report will focus
on:
- characterising the global refining industry
- current and projected refining industry emissions of the refining sector
- technical assessment of technology for CO2 capture in refineries
- current and potential use of CCS in refining sector
- estimated costs of capturing CO2 generally and more specifically for the refining sector.
- legislative pressures relating to the refining sector
- identifying barriers to implementation of CCS in the refining sector
- actions and milestones to implement CCS in the refining sector
2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REFINING SECTOR

There is no such thing as a typical refinery; the configurations and processes in each being dependent
on a number of factors including: the crude feed composition, the product demand, local regulations
and economics. The 661 oil processing complexes considered refineries by the 2009 Worldwide
Refining Survey (Koottungal, 2009) have a combined capacity of 87,223,000 bbl/d (barrels of oil per
calendar day) and range in size from 1,500 bbl/d (Ulyanovskneft, Russia) to 940,000 bbl/d (Paraguana
Refining Centre, Venezuela). The world average is 132,000 bbl/d, with slightly higher averages in the
OECD nations at 140,000 bbl/d, and OPEC nations at 167,000 bbl/d. There has been a trend in the
past two decades to reduce the number of refineries, but increase the capacity; between 1993 and
2007, the average size of refineries increased by 30% (Purvin and Gertz, 2008).

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 1
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Table 1: Imports and exports of mineral crude oil and refined products around the world in
2009. Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2010.
Million barrels daily
Country Crude Product Crude Product
Imports Imports Exports Exports
US 8.89 2.55 0.04 1.87
Canada 0.79 0.32 1.94 0.54
Mexico 0.01 0.44 1.28 0.17
S. & Cent. America 0.50 0.86 2.59 1.14
Europe 10.31 3.18 0.46 1.52
Former Soviet Union 0.02 0.07 6.87 2.20
Middle East 0.14 0.22 16.51 1.92
North Africa 0.37 0.21 2.23 0.53
West Africa 0.00 0.25 4.26 0.11
East & Southern Africa 0.44 0.12 0.30 0.01
Australasia 0.46 0.36 0.26 0.04
China 4.09 1.04 0.09 0.61
India 2.93 0.22 0.00 0.74
Japan 3.54 0.74 - 0.35
Singapore 0.93 1.67 0.05 1.51
Other Asia Pacific 4.59 2.67 0.81 1.25
Unidentified * - 0.02 0.31 0.43
Total World 38.00 14.92 38.00 14.92
The capacity of the world’s refining sector is generally closely related to the world oil demand, as
shown in Figure 1, with oil primarily being converted to transportation fuels. An upward trend in
demand in the past two decades can be seen, following on from the oil shocks of the 1970s. Despite
the correlation between refinery throughput and oil consumption on a global level, this is not
necessarily reflected at a regional level, as shown by imports and exports of crude oil and refined
products in Table 1. There is a trend for the major oil producing regions, such as Russia and Middle
East to export refined products, although these are in smaller quantities than exports of crude oil.
Changing consumption patterns, such as the reduction in gasoline usage and increase in kerosene (jet
fuel) and diesel usage in Europe has led to increased kerosene and diesel importation, mainly from
Russia and export of gasoline to the US and the Middle East. Additional capacity is expected to come
online in the US in the period to 2020, however, most refinery additions required to meet demand are
likely to take place in the Middle East and Far East (Purvin and Gertz Inc., 2008). OPEC (2009)
reiterates this and predicts that to 2020, 47% of capacity additions will come in the Non-OECD Asia
Pacific region and 22% in the Middle East, while in the period up to 2030, 57% are predicted in the
non-OECD Asia-Pacific region and 18% in the Middle East. Figure 2 shows the annual investment in
different regions of the world, indicating where growth in refining capacity has taken place in the past
decade.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 2
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
MMbbl/d
World Refining Capacity

50.0 World Oil Consumption
World Refining Throughput
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Figure 1: Refining capacity and throughput in relation to world oil consumption since 1980.
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2010.
Figure 2: Refining industry annual investment by region from 1995 to 2007 in Billion US$.
Source: Purvin and Gertz, 2008
The world’s refining capacity is made up of a mixture of International oil companies, National oil
companies, and smaller local companies. Concentration in the refining industry is fairly low – e.g. the
top 25 refinery owners, operate little more than 50% of the capacity (Reuters, 2008). In saying that,
the top ten refining companies include five super major oil companies: ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch
Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Total and these ten make up 36% of the world’s capacity. The national
oil companies of Venezuela, China and Saudi Arabia, also feature on the list of the top ten, but in
contrast to the super majors, these companies operate almost exclusively in their own country. Note
that Table 2 is possibly misleading, as a number of joint venture companies operate separately from
their parent organisation. An example of this is Motiva Enterprises LLC, which is a 50/50 joint

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 3
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
venture between Saudi Aramco and Shell, and which has refining capacity of 762,000 bbl/d, making
it the world’s 25th largest refining company.
Table 2: Top 10 refining companies by capacity in bbl/d. Source: Reuters (2008)
Rank Company Capacity Percentage of
[bbl/d] World Capacity
1 ExxonMobil 5,357,850 6.1
2 Sinopec 4,210,917 4.8
3 Royal Dutch Shell 3,985,129 4.6
4 BP 3,231,887 3.7
5 ConocoPhillips 2,799,200 3.2
6 Petroleos de Venezuela 2,642,600 3.0
(PDVSA)
7 PetroChina 2,607,407 3.0
8 Valero Energy Corp 2,422,590 2.8
9 Saudi Aramco 2,005,000 2.3
10 Total 1,934,733 2.2
2.1 Outlook for Refining Sector

The refining sector has uncertain times ahead with the current financial crisis, non-conventional liquid
fuels, and climate policy potentially impacting the sector. In the early part of the decade, 2002-2006,
the refinery market was particularly tight due to historic lack of investment and low margins and a
sudden surge in demand. This led to a surge in investment and capacity, which is leading to an over
supply of refining capacity in light of the recent financial crisis. In the 2008 World Energy Outlook,
OPEC predicted that in 2015 the worldwide refinery utilization would be 84.4%, while following the
financial crisis in 2009, OPEC predicted 2015 utilization rates of 76.6% (OPEC, 2009). This
predicted decline in utilization comes on the back of especially large demand drops in the OECD, that
probably will imply widespread consolidation and closures to restore operating rates and refinery
viability (OPEC, 2009).
The refining industry globally is set to be dramatically affected in coming decades by new supplies of
non-conventional liquid fuels and also by the demands of climate change abatement policy. Excluding
biomass, non-conventional oil supplies including oil sands, natural gas liquids (NGLs), synthetic oil
from shale oil, natural gas (GTLs) and coal (CTLs) are likely to impact the refining industry going
forward. Non-conventionals such as NGLs, GTLs, CTLs and biofuels require less mainstream
refining and will potentially have a negative impact on the industry, while synthetic oil from shale oil
and oil sands still require extensive processing. The OPEC (2009) projections for the supply of crude
and other non-conventionals are summarised in Table 3. Supply of NGLs and condensates in 2008
was 9.8Mbbl/d and is expected to be 11.5 Mbbl/d by 2013. Oil sands production totalled 1.2 Mbbl/d
in 2008 and is expected to reach 1.6 Mbbl/d in 2013, mainly from Canada (OPEC, 2009). Current
supplies of shale oil total 10,000 bbl/d with little expectation of short term growth. GTLs production
is about 50,000 bbl/d, however, this is set to expand substantially with an additional 140,000 bbl/d
coming on line in Qatar in 2011 (Shell, 2010). Supply of CTLs was 160,000 bbl/d in 2008 and is
expected to increase to 300,000 bbl/d in 2013, with these increases mainly in China, South Africa and
US (OPEC, 2009). Non-conventional supplies excluding NGLs and biofuels are expected to grow

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 4
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
from 1.8 Mbbl/d in 2008 to 6.0 Mbbl/d in 2030. Although this growth is much faster than
conventional oil markets, it still is only the equivalent of twenty 300,000 bbl/d refineries. In the short
term the impact of NGLs and condensates on the refining industry is expected to be the greatest of all
the non-conventionals and may lead to a decline in the prices of gasoline and naphtha. This will lead
to a decrease in the need for secondary processing such as FCC. In the longer term there is expected
to be substantial growth in other non-conventionals, which leads to a slight growth in absolute terms
for crude, but a large decline in demand for refined products as a share of total supply.
Table 3: World oil supplies from crude, NGLs and other non-conventionals to 2030. Source:
OPEC, 2009
2008 2013 2020 2030
Total Crude [Mbbl/d] 72.9 72.3 75.0 79.5
Total NGLs [Mbbl/d] 9.8 11.5 13.5 15.2
Total Non-Conventials 3.1 4.2 6.8 10.7
Total World Supply [Mbbl/d] 85.8 88.2 95.7 105.9
% Crude of Total 85.0 82.0 78.4 75.1

% NGLs of Total 11.4 13.0 14.1 14.4
% Non-conventionals of Total 3.6 4.8 7.1 10.1
The climate change debate is affecting the refineries industry: part of the predicted climate abatement
policies will be to introduce biofuels to replace crude-based fuels, and part will be to reduce demand.
The future impact of biofuels is expected to be led by bio-diesel use in Europe on the back of the
2009 EU Renewable Energy Directive. The Directive obliges EU members to have 10% transport fuel
from renewable sources by 2020, however, it must be noted that the requirement of a previous
directive to have 2% by 2005, was not met. Biofuel use in the US and Latin America is also expected
to grow substantially in the coming decades, which will also impact refining in those regions. By
2020, Purvin and Gertz, (2008) expect the world demand to be 100,000t/y. OPEC (2010) state that in
2008 there was 1.3 Mbbl/d of biofuel production and this is expected to grow by 0.7 Mbbl/d between
2008 and 2013, mainly in US, Brazil and China. In the long term to 2030, OPEC predict demand will
reach 4.7 Mbbl/d. Note however, that there is an ongoing debate regarding biofuels’ climate
credentials: E.g. in Lange (2010) there is evidence that suggests changing land use for certain bio-
fuel’s production does not actually reduce global emissions, whilst for other it has a reduced
abatement impact. The exception to this is using existing crop land for biofuel, which has implications
for the food chain. This adds to the pressure on unproven second generation biofuels technology.
In it’s Energy Technology Perspectives report (IEA, 2010), the IEA has forecast transport energy use
in scenario’s where no climate abatement policy exists (baseline) and for scenario’s with different
carbon abatement policy trends (BLUE). In the scenario that growth in fuel usage continues without
any policy interventions in the baseline scenario (Figure 3), the IEA (2010) expects conventional
liquid fuels for transport could increase. In a worst case which includes strong growth in the light
passenger vehicles of the high baseline scenario this could be by as much as 40 Mbbl/d in the period
to 2050. The concept of peak oil is not universally agreed upon by all stakeholders but may mean that
such a rise in production is not possible, as suggested by UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil &
Energy Security (Roberts, 2010). Policy that could lead to CCS applications in the refining sector has
the potential to also reduce the demand for transport fuels, and to reduce the output and emissions

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 5
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
from the refining sector. In this case changes of mode of transport, reduction in miles traveled,
electrification of the small vehicle fleet and use of hydrogen and biofuels could erode demand for
traditional refinery products. Abatement described in the IEA’s so-called BLUE map scenario aims to
maintain long term global temperature rises within 2°C to 3°C range, by reducing 2005 CO2
emissions by half in 2050 with changes in transport technology. In the BLUE map world, crude oil
demand is expected to fall by 27% compared with 2007, although the exact implication for the
refining sector is not defined. Demand for Gasoline, Diesel, Jet fuel and Heavy fuel oil, all fall
considerably under this scenario, which will heavily influence the refining industry throughput (see
Figure 3). It is possible that the actual demand in 2050 will lie somewhere between the two scenarios
described. The weight of evidence from all the sources reviewed suggests demand for conventional
refined products is likely to ease, nevertheless business as usual predictions such as that described by
the IEA (2010) indicate a large amount of uncertainty for the refining sector and its investors. With
reference to Figure 3, the BLUE shifts scenario assumes a change in transport modes to more efficient
modes, with slight reduction in growth and the BLUE map / shifts scenario combines the technology
changes of the BLUE map with the changes in travel patterns of the BLUE shifts scenario. These
scenarios further emphasize the potential carbon abatement policy has to reduce demand for refinery
products.
Figure 3: Evolution of transport energy use by fuel type, worldwide. Source: IEA, 2010
2.2 Refining Industry interest in CCS

Projections of deployment, statements by various companies and demonstration projects currently
underway indicate a desire in the refining sector to understand the potential for and implications of
deploying CCS as a substantial CO2 abatement option. In order to prove CCS technology and to
monitor the G8 goal of achieving commercial deployment of 20 CCS projects by 2020, the Global
CCS Institute has developed an ideal portfolio of projects: it believes there should be 26 projects in
order to prove various configurations of technology in various industrial sectors, transport
configurations and storage options (LEK, 2009). The major contributors to CO2 emissions are power
generation, iron and steel and cement. Outside these three, refineries are identified as a target, because
high purity CO2 is produced as a byproduct of certain hydrogen production configurations. The

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 6
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Global CCS Institute portfolio recommends that at least 3 of the 26 projects be in processes which
already produce high purity CO2, such as applicable refinery hydrogen production processes (LEK,
2009). This interest in demonstrating CCS on certain hydrogen production facilities is a reflection of
the relatively low amount of processing required before storage and hence low costs, which it should
be noted is not a generalisation on the totality of a refinery, as discussed in more detail in section 5.2.
In terms of geographic location of the projects, the LEK report recommends 60% are located in the
Europe, North America and China regions, 15% in Japan and Australia, and final 25% should include
India, Russia, Rest of Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Middle and East Africa. There is no
preference for the type of project in each region.
The IEA Technology roadmap for CCS (2009b) predicts that in order to meet climate change goals,
100 CCS plants need to be deployed by 2020 and 3,400 by 2050. In this roadmap the IEA does not
specifically point to CCS in the refining industry as a target for deployment of CCS out to 2050, but
does include hydrogen production as one of the target sectors. The IEA predictions are based on the
BLUE map scenario, which predicts a decline in the demand for liquid fuels. For this reason it is hard
to determine exactly how many CCS plants are expected to be deployed in the refining sector and if
this should even be a focus for development.
Oil companies and by implication refineries, are increasingly emphasising their “green credentials”,
as can be witnessed by their increasing interest in alternative energy and in cleaner production
methods. BP (through its “Alternative Energy” unit), Shell, Chevron and Statoil have all entered the
market for renewable energy (including wind and biofuels) during the past decade (although BP and
Shell have since re-balanced their positions). The current environmental crisis in the Gulf of Mexico
is likely to influence developments as well, although it is too early to say how or when. This increased
interest in sustainability (whether perceived or real) may result in an appetite for technologies such as
CCS, including the application of CCS to refineries. Furthermore, CCS at refineries can potentially be
a (although limited) Low Carbon Fuel Standard compliance option, depending on regulatory
acceptance.
OPEC recently stated that it “advocates further development of CCS technologies and where possible,
in conjunction with CO2-enhanced oil recovery” (OPEC, 2010).
Note that there are differences between the motivations of national oil companies and international oil
companies to implement greenhouse gas technologies, including CCS. Because of the level of
development in most of the countries of national oil companies/refineries, the priorities for these
regions (and their industry) are to reduce poverty and increase standards of living. It will be more
difficult to justify implementing CCS which will increase demand for already over stretched
electricity or water supplies to the detriment of the general population.
In the developed world, there are some projects looking at implementing CCS in refineries. One such
project is the Rotterdam Climate Initiative (RCI) which is investigating the potential for developing a
CCS network for the Rotterdam industrial complex, reducing emissions in 2025 by 50% compared to
1990. The RCI plans to use CO2 in the horticulture industry, expanding the existing CO2 pipelines
from the Shell refinery, and to use, in a start up phase, ships to transport the CO2 for storage. In this
project, pure sources of CO2, such as those from refinery hydrogen manufacture, are to be addressed
in the first phase (Rotterdam Climate Initiative, 2009).
Another European project that indicates interest in development of CCS technologies from the
refining industry is the European CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM), next to the Mongstad
refinery in Norway. The project is currently building two small-scale capture demonstration plants.
Also there are plans to develop a full-scale capture plant on the natural gas fired combined heat and

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 7
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
power (CHP) plant. The demonstration project will capture CO2 from both a power station and
refining flue gases with different compositions. The project is part owned by A/S Norske Shell,
Statoil ASA and South African coal to liquids refining company SASOL, who purchased a 2.44%
share in 2010 (TCM, 2010).
In North America, the US Department of Energy used the 2009 economic recovery package to fund a
number of CCS projects, including three refinery-based projects; the IGCC plant at the
ConocoPhillips refinery in Houston, the hydrogen production gasifier at the BP refinery in Denbury,
Connecticut, and the steam methane reformer project in Port Arthur, Texas. Subsequently, the Air
Products & Chemicals and Denbury Onshore-led Port Arthur project was selected in June 2010 for
further funding of the order of $US 253 million, to proceed with the project. It is important to note
that all these projects are government-funded in one way or another. In Canada, the Alberta
Government has recently agreed to fund the North West Upgrading Bitumen Refinery, near
Edmonton, as part of its Bitumen Royalty in Kind initiative. The refinery is to be built with CCS
capability. These already announced projects indicate that there is some appetite mainly from the
public sector, and to a lesser extent the private sector to develop CCS for the refining industry. In the
perspective of the requirements to combat climate change, many more projects will be required.
Technical aspects of these projects are described in more detail in Section 4 Technical Overview of
Capture Options.
3 CURRENT AND PROJECTED EMISSIONS

3.1 Historic Emissions and Uncertainty
Historic data of greenhouse gas emissions has been estimated by a number of sources, but this study
has found no comprehensive record for the world’s refining industry. The most freely available source
of data of existing CO2 for the worldwide refining industry is the IEA Greenhouse Gas Program
(IEAGHG) CO2 Emissions Database. The information in this database is based on numerous editions
of the Oil and Gas Journal’s worldwide refining survey, the most recent being the 2008 edition of the
survey. Most of the emissions in the database are estimated, other than those in Europe, which are
measured for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). IEA-GHG (2008) reports that refineries
produce 818 Mt CO2/year. The IPCC (2005) report that refineries make up 5.97% of global emissions,
based on an earlier version of IEA-GHG’s CO2 emissions database.
Estimates of the emissions are based on the daily production capacity operating for 8,300 hrs/year
with an emissions factor of 0.219 kg CO2/kg of product (IEAGHG, 2008). The assumptions made in
these estimates lead to uncertainty in the final estimates, and a number of different sources would
suggest that the uncertainty is great. Gary and Handwerk (2001) state that typically for a 300,000
bbl/d refinery, CO2 emissions range from 0.8 million tCO2/y to 4.2 million tCO2/y, which correlates to
an average of 2.28 million tCO2/y with uncertainty of ±1.55 million tCO2/y or ±70%. Typically a
refinery will use between 4% and 15% of the crude oil input for process energy production (Szklo &
Schaeffer, 2010) depending on the configuration. The European BREF document (EIPPCB, 2003) for
mineral oil and gas refining suggests uncertainty in the specific emissions from refineries is even
greater, stating that refining-specific emissions vary from 0.02 kgCO2/kg of product to 0.81 kgCO2/kg
of product. Others support the figure of 0.219: Mertens (2009) published the EU average as 0.22 t
CO2/t crude. Additionally, Table 4 shows that the specific emissions are dependent on the refinery
configuration.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 8
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Table 4: Refinery configuration CO2 Emissions. Source: Mertens (2009)

Refinery Configuration t CO2/t crude
Hydroskimming 0.08 - 0.15

Fluidised Catalytic Cracker + Vis Breaker ~0.2
Hydrocracker Unit + coker 0.2 - 0.35
Residual Desulphurisation + Residual 0.3 - 0.4
Fluidised Catalytic Cracker
The IEA-GHG CO2 emissions database uses a figure of 8,300 hours of full load operation for
calculating the emissions, suggesting 95% of the time refineries operate at full load. Using figures for
refining capacity and refining throughput (BP, 2010), would suggest that using full load operational
time of 8,300 hrs/y is optimistic, given that it does not address part load operation. BP figures show
that the world’s refinery throughput between 2000 and 2009 was about 84% of capacity. Given that
the IEA-GHG (2009) uses full load hours to calculate the emissions, a figure of 7,400 hours (11%)
would appear to be more realistic to show emissions of actual refinery throughput. This uncertainty
could rise again if utilization rates drop to 76.6% in 2015 as predicted by OPEC (2009). It is beyond
the scope of this assessment to calculate what the uncertainty in the existing refining emissions data
might be, however, it is a recommendation for further work to form a more accurate inventory.
3.2 Projected Emissions
Projecting CO2 emissions from refining industry out to 2050 is a difficult task, given that the existing
inventory is so uncertain and the uncertain adaptation responses affecting refinery configuration.
Concawe (2008) predict that for the European basis, refinery CO2 emissions share of total CO2
emissions will increase from 6.1% in 2000 to 8.3% in 2020 and stepwise increase to 10.3% with
predicted fuel quality specification changes. ICF (2005) reports that to keep pace with the rise in oil
demand, refining capacity needs to have a 9% surplus over oil demand. Based on this assumption and
the projections of both the IEA and OPEC, refining capacities for both scenarios are shown in Table
5. Based on both of these assumptions it is fair to assume that the emissions from the refining industry
will increase. McKinsey (2005) reports that downstream refining emissions accounted for 1.1 Gt/y of
CO2 in 2005 and project that this will grow to 1.5 Gt/y by 2030. LEK (2009) have predicted that by
2020, the refining sector will contribute 1.3 Gt/y CO2 emissions. Looking further out is much more
uncertain, due to the differences in predictions for the demand of liquid fuels, and the use of non-
conventional fuels.
In its business-as-usual scenario, the IEA (2010) predicts that industrial emissions in 2050 will rise to
between 19.9 Gt CO2 and 21.9 Gt CO2 and conventional liquid fuels for transport could increase by as
much as 40 Mbbl/d. Abatement described in the so-called BLUE map scenario aims to maintain long
term global temperature rises within 2°C to 3°C range. In the BLUE map world crude oil demand is
expected to fall by 27% compared with 2007, although the exact implication for the refining sector is
not defined. Demand for Gasoline, Diesel, Jet fuel and Heavy fuel oil, all fall considerably under this
scenario, which will heavily influence the refining industry throughput (see Figure 4). Under the
BLUE map scenario, world industrial emissions are predicted to be between 11.0 Gt CO2 and 12.5 Gt
CO2.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 9
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Table 5: World oil consumption and refining capacity related for the OPEC and IEA
projections in Mbbl/d. Oil consumption projections are from IEA (2008c) and OPEC (2009).
Year 1990 2006 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
OPEC 2009 World 85600 84600 90200 95400 100400 105600

Oil Consumption
World Refining 98318 103986 109436 115104

Capacity (OPEC)
IEA 2008 Oil
68222 86624 98193 102945 107155 110865
Consumption
World Refining 107030 112210 116799 120843

Capacity (IEA)
Under the BLUE map scenario for transport fuels, outlined “well to wheel” analysis in Figure 3, the
world refining industry would be expected to decline and hence the potential for CCS in the refining
sector is in retrofit. Figure 4 indicates that there will be some regional emissions growth to 2050.
Transport related emissions including refining in China, India and rest of world including Middle
East, Africa and Latin America could grow for various scenarios, hence there is potential for
greenfield CCS deployment in these regions. Based on Figure 4, the potential for CCS deployment in
the more establish OECD markets to 2050 may be as retrofit of brownfield refinery sites.
Figure 4. Well-to-wheel transport CO2-equivalent emissions by region and by scenario. CCS is

only relevant to the refinery part of the emissions. Source: IEA, 2010

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 10
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
4 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY

The focus of this chapter is on the capture of CO2, as the transport and storage of CO2 are more
generic and relate to all applications of CCS. There are three different pathways for capturing CO2;
post-combustion capture, pre-combustion capture and oxy-fuel combustion capture and in this section
we explore the potential of each for the refining industry. Post-combustion capture is the removal of
CO2 from flue gases of a combustion process, most likely using a chemical absorption process,
following the combustion of the carbonaceous fuel. Pre-combustion capture involves the partial
oxidation of a carbonaceous fuel, followed by steam reforming to produce high concentration
hydrogen and CO2, which are subsequently separated. Hydrogen can then be used as a clean burning
fuel. Oxy-fuel combustion involves combustion of carbonaceous fuel in high purity oxygen, forming
a flue gas of only steam and CO2, which are separated by condensing the water. A summary of the
CO2 separation technology used to actually separate the CO2 is shown in Table 6.
Refineries consist of a number of complex and varied unit processes and hence have numerous point
source emissions distributed over a large site. For the sake of this study and to simplify the refinery
scenario, the emissions streams will be classified in the following four categories: process heaters,
utilities, fluid catalytic cracker (FCC) and hydrogen manufacture. Table 6 offers more detailed
description of each category outlined, the proportion of the typical refinery emissions it makes up and
the concentration of the CO2 emitted. There will also be a distinction between the likely capture
options for new refineries vs. retrofitting existing refineries. In the interim between the initial
demonstration of capture technology and any eventual mandatory requirement to CCS there may be a
need for plants to be built “capture ready”, which is something that will need to be explored in more
detail.
Table 6: An overview of major CO2 emission sources at a typical refinery complex. Source: van
Straelen et al., 2009.
CO2 emitter Description % of total Concentration of

refinery CO2 stream
emissions
Process Heaters Heat required for the separation of liquid feed and to 30-60 % 8-10%
provide heat of reaction to refinery processes such
as reforming and cracking
Utilities CO2 from the production of electricity and steam at 20-50% 4% (CHP Gas
a refinery. turbine)
Fluid catalytic cracker Process used to upgrade a low hydrogen feed to 20-50% 10-20%
more valuable products
Hydrogen For numerous processes, refineries require 5-20% 20- 99%

manufacturing hydrogen. Most refineries produce this hydrogen on
site. The requirements for Hydrogen increase with
demands of stricter fuel quality regulation.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 11
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
4.1 Process Heaters

Combustion in process heaters account for up to 60% of a refinery’s CO2 emissions. Currently the
two most developed technologies likely to be used for emissions reduction from process heaters (and
utility boilers) in the refinery scenario are post-combustion capture and oxy-fuel combustion.
Technologies that potentially could feature in the future include chemical looping combustion for
green field using refinery gas (Morin and Béal, 2005) and pre-combustion capture, using hydrogen
fuel in boilers and heaters (IEAGHG, 2000). Further studies are required to assess the potential of
pre-combustion for refinery process heaters, since this will include hydrogen production units
(Mirracca, 2009).
Post-combustion capture has been investigated for a number of scenarios, namely Hurst and Walker,
(2005) and van Straelen et. al. (2010). The engineering details for capture will vary, but the basis for
the Hurst and Walker (2005) study was the 196,000 bbl/d, Grangemouth refinery in Scotland and
capture of the CO2 emissions from the fired heaters and boilers on the site. They proposed to collect
all the stacks gases from these heaters across the site and duct them to a central location where CO2 is
separated and compressed. To move these gases across the site would require the addition of fans to
move the stack gases to the central treatment process. This is not a unanimously accepted
configuration as van Straelen et. al. (2010) question the feasibility of such a configuration on a larger
400,000 bbl/d refinery, stating that finding the space for large diameter ducting will be a challenge,
and instead propose only capturing the CO2, from the largest stack emissions. This lack of agreement
indicates that solutions will be site specific and further detailed design is required to establish the best
for each. Independent of the ducting configuration is the requirement to remove the NOx and SOx
from the stack gases before the CO2 absorber to reduce degradation of the absorption solvent. With
the lay outs of refineries with numerous emission points of different sizes, the capture rate at
refineries will be limited and be determined by the “tail” of smaller hard to connect emissions points
rather then the capture efficiency of the capture technology/process.
Removal of NOx and SOx from flue gas streams is a relatively well known technology, which is
applied to combustion processes in a number of industries for environmental reasons. Metz et. al.
(2005) state that SOx needs to be reduced to between 1 & 50 ppm for post-combustion capture of CO2
in flue gases. For combustion of refinery or natural gas in heaters and boilers, SOx removal may not
be required, but where higher sulphur fuel oil and solid fuels are used this will be required.
Concentrations of NOx needs to be reduced to 20 ppm for CO2 capture (Hurst & Walker, 2005),
meaning that some form of NOx reduction will almost certainly be required on all heaters and boilers
irrespective of the fuel. To operate the SOx and NOx reduction technologies there are also
requirements for soot and fly ash in order to prevent plugging of the absorbers (Metz et. al., 2005).
The addition of CO2 capture will require considerable amounts of additional energy and utilities and
result in an increase in (to be captured|) emissions. Table 7 details the utility requirements and waste
production of equipment required to retrofit Grangemouth refinery with CCS on the process heaters
and boilers. The basis for this is using Fluor Econamine FG+ process for CO2 capture, Cansolv
process for SOx capture and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx treatment.
Oxy-fuel offers another potential mechanism for capturing the CO2 from heaters and boilers. The
Grangemouth refinery was used as the basis for investigating the deployment of Oxy-fuel for an
existing refinery (Wilkinson et. al., 2003 & Allam, 2005). For this scenario it is proposed that all
heaters and boiler on site are modified for firing with pure oxygen, produced at a central location, and
that flue gases from the combustion plants will be initially treated at locations local to the stacks
(where water will be removed and CO2 will be compressed to 30bar). As shown in Table 8 the
production of the oxygen will require considerable amounts of additional (electrical) energy and thus

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 12
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
increase CO2 emissions. Final compression of CO2 to pipeline pressure will take place at one central
location. To fire the process heaters and boiler that produce 2 million tonnes/year of CO2 with
oxygen, two 3,700 tonne/day air separation units (ASU) will be required (Allam et. al., 2005). By
current standards, these are very large given the largest existing facility is 3,500 tonne/day (Metz et.
al., 2005). All of the heaters and boilers will require significant modification or replacement. The use
of induced draft fans on the flue gases means in order to reduce the amount of air leakage into the
boiler better sealing is required, but complete sealing is not feasible due to maintenance requirements
(Wilkinson et. al., 2003). To control the combustion temperature, each heater and boiler will also
require modification for flue gas recycle, including the addition of a flue gas recycle fan. The ability
to completely shut off of boiler flue gases is required in addition to use of air for firing during start up.
The result of these modifications will reduce the firing rates by up to 15%. Typical for any refinery,
one of the challenges will be the large distances for piping oxygen and carbon dioxide across the site
between oxygen facilities and CO2 compression stations, illustrated in Figure 5 which gives an
isometric of a proposed layout of the Grangemouth refinery.
Table 7: Shows the increases in utility requirements and wastes produced when retrofitting post
combustion capture and compression to the heaters and boilers of the 196,000 bbl/d
Grangemouth refinery. Process changes will reduce CO2 emissions by 2 million tonnes/year
from refinery boilers and heater. Source: Hurst & Walker, (2005).
Utilities Quantity
Steam 480 tonnes/h
Power 72 MW
Cooling Water 18,139 m3/h
Process Water 1025 tonnes/h
Source and Wastes
CHP Stack from additional power & steam (CO2 0.6 million tonnes/y
produced at 18% eff from natural gas)
Cooling towers (water vapour) 8 million tonnes/y
Amine Reclaimer wastes (heat stable salts 150 tonnes/week
SOx unit (SO2 waste) 100 tonnes/week
The existence of new or increased quantities of hazardous materials; pure oxygen and high-pressured
carbon dioxide, will increase the level of risk in a refinery, but the existing health safety and
environmental hazards on a refining site are such, that these will not require a step change to be
managed (Wilkinson et. al., 2003). For oxy-fuel combustion, there may be a technical requirement to
remove the NOx and SOx from the CO2 for transport and storage specifications. Allam et. al. (2005),
considered three different cases for oxy-fuel capture at the Grangemouth site. Table 8 shows the
utility requirements and waste outputs for the case with the greatest capacity to avoid CO2 from the
addition of oxy-fuel CCS technology to the process heaters and boilers. The basis for this is addition
of a gas turbine operating pre-combustion CO2 capture to generate power for the ASU compressors
and additional fans, two 3,700 tonne/d adiabatic ASU’s, configured as described above.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 13
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Based on promising economics, several vendors are developing and commercialising oxy-burners
(Miracca, 2009). There are a number of shortcomings that remain, including the heat flux which could
induce fouling in some heaters, but it is generally expected that these can be overcome. Further cost
reductions can be expected if internal rather than external dilution technology is developed. There is
also specific attention to lower the cost of oxygen production. The focus on post combustion
technology in the power industry now means that a single amine train is capable of capturing more
CO2 than produced with oxy-combustion from a single ASU, which may be a factor in decision
making for retrofit where space is an issue.
Table 8: Utility requirements and wastes produced for the addition of Oxy-fuel CCS technology
to the process heaters and boilers with hydrogen fired GT power generation at the 196,000
bbl/d Grangemouth refinery.
Utility Quantity
Power generated 108 MW
Power Export 0.3 MW
O2 requirement 6889 tonne/d
Cooling water use 16,700 tonne/h
CO2 Captured 2.33 million tonne/y
CO2 Avoided 1.97 million tonne/y

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 14
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Figure 5: Isometric view of Grangemouth refinery site layout and proposed location of oxy-fuel
systems, air separation units and cooling towers. Source: Allam et. al. (2005).
4.2 Utilities
In a refinery, utilities steam and electricity are used by many of the unit processes to varying degrees.
There is a much greater demand for steam than there is for electricity for all refinery configurations.
Steam is produced in (waste heat) boilers where (GT) cogeneration of Power and Heat is an
established energy efficiency (and carbon abatement) measure for refineries, combined with power
transport for the optimal power to heat generation ratio. In the near to mid-term, the capture
technology most likely to be deployed for utilities is post combustion technology for retrofit that has
been developed in other sectors, such as power generation. Longer term, other technologies such as
poly-generation and oxy-fuel may offer more potential for new builds. Capture technology for the
power generation sector will probably lead the development before other sectors, so refinery utilities
are a good opportunity for deployment of their learnings and optimisation. Amine technology
developed from acid gas processing is the most advanced and well known technology, however other
technology such as the chilled ammonia process (CAP) offer potential as well. Although unproven at
commercial scale, process modelling indicates that the CAP process potentially has a smaller energy
penalty. Table 9 shows a comparison of the energy penalty for each process, based on a 460 MWel
pulverised coal super critical power plant. In order to reduce the need to capture CO2, the amount of
CO2 emissions should be minimised. Combined heat and power is a technology that has potential for
this.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or Cogeneration is another technology that offers potential
emission reductions due to the increase in overall efficiency. CHP also makes CCS technology more

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 15
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
applicable by centralising the emissions. Even when operating in a high heat to power ratio, a CHP
system will produce excess electricity. The operating nature of a refinery means that steam supply
with an extremely high reliability/availability is required, meaning that refinery cogeneration is often
a “must run” where the operator can not match the load to the spot prices and hence increases risk for
scenarios where electricity is sold on the open market, without external incentives. Therefore the
operation of a CHP plant at a refinery is complex and requires several operating modes in order to be
effective. There are numerous examples of the deployment of CHP in the refining industry for
efficiency purposes: In the UK, the Immingham 734 MWel natural gas fired CHP plant has been
successfully operating since the 2004 and produces heat and power for two UK refineries, while
Pergen in the Netherland supplies heat to the Shell Pernis refinery, etc. In Australia, the Queensland
Clean Fuels Project at the BP Bulwer Refinery is an example of CHP and also integrated use of gases
of commercial gases, as shown in Figure 6. This complex gives the refinery many advantages
including the ability to supply and receive utilities from the cogeneration plant. This is a good
example of centralising industry for efficiency gains, which also centralise CO2 emissions for easier
capture.
Table 9. Comparison of energy efficiency of two capture technologies on a 460 MWe pulverised
coal fired super critical power plant. Source: Rhudy, 2006
Supercritical PC Supercritical PC with Supercritical PC with
without CO2 capture MEA CO2 capture CAP CO2 removal
Auxilary Power, MWe 29.1 72.7 56.1
LP Steam extraction, kg/hr 0 551,405 204,684
Net Power Output, MWe 462.1 329.5 415.3
Net Efficiency, % HHV 40.5 28.9 36.4
CO2 emissions, kg/kWh 0.78 0.11 0.09
The Norwegian Mongstad refinery CHP project has been high profile because it is potentially one of
the first gas based power plants to have CCS fitted to it. Currently under construction is a 280 MWel
natural gas fired CHP power plant that is capable of producing up to 350 MWth of steam. In parallel to
the CHP plant, a test facility is being built where two different post combustion capture technologies
will be tested side by side (Statoil, 2010). The capture technologies to be tested at European CO2
technology centre Mongstad (TCM) refinery are Aker Clean Carbon’s amine based process and
Alstom’s chilled ammonia process, beginning operation in 2011 capturing 100,000 t/y between them
(TCM DA, 2009). CO2 from two slip streams of the natural gas fired CHP plant and a slip stream
from the adjacent Mongstad refinery FCC process emissions will be used to test the two post
combustion technologies. Initially the plant will operate at about 60% overall efficiency, but as more
of the refinery is integrated into the project this will increase up to 80% overall efficiency. Electricity
produced by the power plant will be used in the refinery and exported to the Troll A offshore
platform. The new CHP plant will increase the refinery emissions by 0.95 Mt/y, but will reduce the
need for energy import to the refinery and offshore platform, thereby decreasing global emissions
(Statoil, 2010). The outcomes of the post-combustion capture technology comparison in the test
centre will be used for the scope and the optimisation of the retrofit of the CHP plant with CO2
capture technology. The Norwegian government, who are funding the capture part of the project,
initially wanted to make an investment decision on the capture technology to be deployed at
Mongstad in 2012, but have revised this to 2014 (The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and
Energy, 2010).

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 16
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Figure 6: Bulwer Refinery complex, with air separation unit, natural gas partial oxidation, and
cogeneration plant feeding a refinery and industrial gases plant. Source: Phillips, 2002.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is a pre-combustion process for utilities supply at a
refinery that can be coupled with CCS. An attraction of IGCC is the capability of the gasification unit
to be used to produce hydrogen and/or synthesis gas which could be used in a poly-generation
scenario. In the poly-generation gasification of heavy residues configuration, co-production of
hydrogen can be combined with synthesis-gas used in gas turbines for cogeneration of steam,
potentially retrofitted to full shift and hydrogen use in developing gas turbine technology, which
centralises the source of CO2 emissions. As stated earlier, there is a need for further work to evaluate
if this is a feasible solution, although project examples exist, such as the OPTI Canada Oil Sands
project (Simbeck, 2005). The complex nature of this solution makes it more suited to new builds,
where process design can be integrated much more effectively.
4.3 Fluid Catalytic Cracker
Not all refineries operate fluidised catalytic cracking units, but in a few cases they can account for as
much as 50% of refinery CO2 emissions (Kuuskraa, 2009). Unlike most of the other emissions from a
refinery, the emissions from the fluid catalytic cracker (FCC) are process related rather than
combustion related. During processing, carbon is deposited on the surface of catalyst powder,
essential to the process deactivating the catalyst. The catalyst is regenerated by oxidation of the coke
with air. Depending on the exact process, the concentration of CO2 in the flue gas typically ranges
from 10% to 20% (de Mello et. al. 2008). Two options exist for the capture of CO2 from the FCC, one
is the more mature post-combustion capture, the other still in development is oxy-firing of the
regeneration process. De Mello et al. compared the potential for both regeneration processes and their
relative merits and reported that despite the relatively high capital cost of oxy-firing, the potential of
lower operating costs make it attractive proposition in a carbon constrained world. A field

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 17
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
demonstration on a Petrobras 60 bbl/d FCC in Brazil is currently underway (Kuuskraa, 2009). Small-
scale testing shows that it is technically feasible to maintain stable operation of an FCC in oxy-firing
mode (de Mello et al., 2008). Table 10 shows the relative utility consumption and waste generation of
post combustion CO2 from an FCC compared with oxy-firing of the FCC. The basis for the study is a
10,000 m³/d residual FCC, using Kerr-McGee CO2 recovery system with an MEA
(Monoethanolamine) solvent for post combustion capture, and a SOx scrubber to reduce concentration
to 7ppm. The oxy-firing cases are based on using an air separation unit to produce either 99.9% vol.
O2 or 95% vol. O2. SOx in the hot flue gases are removed with a SOx scrubber prior to dehydration
and compression.
Table 10: Relative utility usage and waste production for post combustion capture of CO2 from
an FCC compared with oxy-firing of the FCC. Source: de Mello et. al. (2008)
Utility Post-Combustion Oxy-firing, 99.9% O2 Oxy-firing, 95% O2
Capture
Water make-up 67.5 m³/h 59.8 m³/h 59.8 m³/h
Water blow-out 15.1 m³/h 18.3 m³/h 18.3 m³/h
Cooling water 572.2 m³/d 288.3 m³/d 314.1 m³/d

consumption
HP Steam consumed 140.3 t/h 0.3 t/h 0.4 t/h
MP steam consumed 0 2.3 t/h 2.4 t/h
LP steam consumed 216.5 t/h 0 0
HP steam produced 78.7 t/h 103.6 t/h 102.2 t/h
Electricity consumed 15.8 MW 74.0 MW 71.2 MW
4.4 Hydrogen Production

Hydrogen is an ever increasing contributor to the CO2 emission profile of a modern refinery as
changes to fuel specifications require increased levels of hydro-treating. Hydrogen production is also
important in the production of fertiliser, chemicals and as an energy source going forward. These
industries are covered in more detail by the pure sources of CO2 assessment report.
On a refinery, between 5% and 20% of CO2 emissions are linked to the production of hydrogen (H2).
Hydrogen is a by-product of the catalytic reformer and FCC processes; however, as demand has
increased with changes in fuel specification, demand now exceeds supply from these processes in
most refineries. To meet the increased demand, hydrogen is produced either through steam methane
reforming of natural gas or gasification of heavy residues and fuel oil. Hydrogen produced in both of
these processes needs to be separated from other constituents in the flue gases.
Gasification plants for hydrogen manufacture are generally larger than SMR and operate at high
pressures of 50-70bar. These conditions are suitable for the use of physical absorption solvents over
chemical absorption solvents because they have higher loadings, require less energy input and
produce dry CO2 under these conditions. With gasification, all the CO2 emissions associated with
conversion end up in the flue gas stream and hence there is a higher rate of capture than SMR.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 18
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Traditionally, hydrogen produced in SMR was purified using chemical absorption systems such as hot
potassium carbonate or MDEA (Methyldiethanolamine), however, there is a more recent trend in the
past three decades, towards separation using pressure swing absorption. In SMR systems with
chemical absorption, about 60% of the total CO2 emissions are captured in high purity stream, 99%
CO2, and the remainder ends up in a nitrogen rich flue gas stream from the furnace. In the current
refining market pressure swing absorption (PSA) offers two advantages over amine chemical
absorption: 1) PSA produces very high purity hydrogen, 99.9+% and 2) the overall energy efficiency
of the hydrogen production process is increased compared with chemical absorption (Lindsay et. al.,
2009). The change to PSA has been driven by a market for high purity hydrogen and has lead to much
lower concentration CO2 streams containing 20-30% impurities, depending on the feed and design.
The impurities include H2, CO and CH4 which means the gas is effective as part of the fuel for the
SMR furnace further diluting the CO2 in the final combustion product and reducing the CO2 capture
feasibility (Simbeck, 2005). The use of PSA means that further separation and processing are required
to prepare CO2 for transport and storage, leading to higher capture costs. Hydro-cracking has a
minimum requirement for hydrogen purity of 95% (Lindsay et. al.,2009), which can be achieved with
chemical absorption processes such as MDEA. Although PSA produces hydrogen of higher quality
and lower cost in the current economic situation, this may not be the case in a carbon constrained
world. The economics are discussed further in section 5.2. The pure or higher concentration CO2
streams such as hydrogen production using gasification and SMR with chemical absorption may be
attractive unit processes for future CCS deployment in a refinery.
The high purity of CO2 from certain hydrogen production unit operations has made it of interest to
publicly funded CCS demonstration programmes. Capturing CO2 from pure sources such as hydrogen
production is the most cost effective for the Rotterdam industrial scenario (Rotterdam Climate
Initiative, 2009). The Alberta government has announced plans to fund a 150,000 bbl/d bitumen
refinery north west of Edmonton which will incorporate CCS. North West Upgrading will use coke
gasification processes to produce hydrogen and CO2, using hydro-processing on the site to produce
high specification fuels. Enhanced Energy is likely to take 3,500 t/d of CO2 from the plant as part of
the project.
4.5 Carbon abatement options other than CCS for the refining sector
The first and most obvious step before investigating the application of CCS to a refinery, is to look at
opportunities to reduce existing refinery CO2 emissions, and hence the amount that may need to be
captured. In this section opportunities to reduce CO2 without CCS are identified. Methods for
increasing the efficiency and hence reducing the CO2 emissions for heaters and boilers include
process integration, optimising excess air and using air pre-heaters (Baar et. al., 2009). Opportunities
also exist to reduce the heat demand in the refinery by heat integration of processes, in particular the
use of combined heat and power generation, offers a good opportunity to reduce the heat and boiler
loads, which account for up to 60% of a refinery’s emissions. Szklo et al. (2006) predicts potential
energy and hence emissions savings with use of heat integration and waste heat recovery, fouling
mitigation and advanced process control in existing refineries. For new refineries, replacement of
conventional atmospheric and vacuum distillation units with new technologies, use of variable speed
drives for motors, membrane separation technology for hydrogen and the use of vacuum pumps and
surface condensers offer potential for additional energy and hence emissions reductions. In some
situations, where fuels are available, switching from high CO2 emissions fuels such as coke to lower
emissions fuels (See Table 11), can offer some short-term gains, however, unless another use is found
for the higher emissions fuels, then fuel switching will not reduce global emissions. Fuelling heaters,

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 19
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
utilities and hydrogen production processes with biomass also has potential to reduce the carbon
footprint of the refining sector. Hydrogen is often a constituent of refinery gas, which is combusted in
heaters and boilers as a low CO2 fuel, however, the emissions created in producing the hydrogen are
greater than those saved by burning it as a fuel. From a CO2 point of view it is therefore beneficial to
reuse hydrogen by products as much as possible rather than make more hydrogen (Clark, 2000).
Table 11: Carbon Dioxide emissions of refinery fuels, (abbreviations: C-Carbon, H-Hydrogen,
P-Parafins, O-Olefins, A-Aromatics). Source: EIPPCB (2003)
Fuel Type Typical Composition kgCO2/kg fuel kgCO2/GJ
(%w/w)
Refinery fuel gas 30H2, 35C1, 35C2 % v/v 2.83 43
Natural Gas 100% methane 2.75 56
LPG 50C3, 50C4 3.02 64
Distillate Fuel Oil 60P, 10O, 30A 3.22 74
Residual Fuel 50P, 50A 3.26 79
Coke 90C, 10 ash 3.3 117
Research funding specifically for the refining sector generally focuses on topics such as higher yields,
energy efficiency and shorter downtimes, rather than on novel processes. In recent times large oil and
gas companies have reduced their research and development efforts and are relying more on third
parties to undertake development work and supply technology when it is required (EIPPCB, 2003).
Developments are reported in the technical literature (Hydrocarbon Processing, Chemical Engineering
Progress, Oil and Gas Journal, Erdöl, Gas und Kohle, Petroleum Technology Review) and during
seminars and conferences (World Petroleum Congress, WEFA, Hart’s Fuel Conference, European
Refining Technology Conference, NPRA and API specialist meetings) for the dissemination of those
techniques.
Other research efforts for carbon abatement in the oil and gas sector have focused on producing fuels
that are cleaner burning, high efficiency, with lower tail pipe emissions. This research is being
undertaken at a number of institutes mainly in the developed world, but it is expected that successful
technologies will be rolled out around the world, as they have been in the past. Energy and process
efficiencies have potential to reduce CO2 emissions, but for substantial CO2 emissions reductions
(>40%) CCS remains a promising technology.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 20
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Figure 7: Carbon Abatement cost and potential emissions savings for the oil and gas industry.
Source: McKinsey (2010)
McKinsey (2010), suggest that the options for making deep cuts into carbon emissions to 2030 will
differ by region. In the developed world, Western Europe, North and Latin America, CCS offers the
most potential for large cuts in CO2 emissions; in Africa it will be reducing flaring; in Eastern Europe
and Russia, it will be reducing emissions associated with pipeline networks; and in China, India and
developing Asia energy efficiency and co-generation offer the most potential. Figure 7 shows the
potential for CO2 emissions reduction for the world’s oil and gas industry as a whole and likely
costs/savings, more specifically the downstream savings relate to the refining sector. CCS clearly
shows potential to capture the most emissions, but it also has the greatest cost and other emissions
reduction options will actually have cost savings. The opportunity areas McKinsey has identified for
the downstream refining sector include: Energy efficiency from behavioural changes, from improved
maintenance and process, requiring CAPEX for process units; cogeneration; and carbon capture and
storage. It is important that all lower cost CO2 abatement measures are implemented before
considering CCS, to reduce the overall cost of CCS and hence increase the chances for economic
deployment.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 21
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
5 ESTIMATED COSTS AND INVESTMENTS

5.1 General CCS costs
McKinsey & Company published a study in 2008 that has become a much-referenced source on the
costs of CCS. Although that study focuses on coal-fired power plants, it is informative in terms of
producing a range of costs based on a bottom-up review of options. The costs of CCS are defined as
“the additional full cost, i.e. including initial investments and ongoing operational expenditures of a
CCS power plant compared to the cost of a state-of-the-art non-CCS plant, with the same net
electricity output and using the same fuel”. Note that the costs include transport and storage, as well
as capture. The cost range is found to be between €30-90/tonne CO2, which is further subdivided into
€30-50/tonne for a commercial scale plant and €60-90/tonne for the initial demonstration projects.
Note that the initial CAPEX of the capture unit represents half of the CO2 capture cost. It follows
from this that the greatest cost savings for CCS overall would come from improvements in the cost of
capture/capture technology improvements. This is likely to be true for the refineries sector as well.
Note furthermore that the cost of storage, while not among the largest components in the CCS value
chain, is the component with the highest relative variability due to the range of possible
characteristics of storage locations.
Another general cost reference for CCS is the INTEK estimate (Oil&Gas Journal, 2009) that focused
on a US coal power plant case study. They find that CO2 capture costs range between $34-61/tonne
CO2 and that total costs range between $43 and $115. This estimate (translated to Euros: €35-93) is
thus in line with the McKinsey&Company estimate. It is also noted that $/t CO2 capture costs for
refineries will be higher than for coal fired power plant, as a result of complexity (ducting of smaller
sources), scale, cost of energy and lack of utility integration (refinery application demands dedicated
Capture plant utilities) and other factors. In open Cap &Trade systems this could lead to a prolonged
buying of CO2 credits for refineries as the economic optimum.
5.2 Refinery Specific Costs
Studies of the costs of applying CCS to the refineries industry have been carried out, including those
published by CO2 Capture Project (CCP) (Melien and Brown-Roijen, 2009), van Straelen et. al.
(2009) and Tel Tek (2009). Tel Tek estimate that the capture cost for the Esso Slangentangen refinery
distillation heater would be €77/tonne CO2 (NOK 607/tonne CO2). The CCP (Melien and Brown-
Roijen, 2009) reported more detailed capture costs for a natural gas fired power plant, refinery
process heaters and boilers, and the FCC. For power generation, a number of both post-combustion
and pre-combustion technologies were assessed and used as a basis for calculating a range of carbon
dioxide avoidance costs based on a new 400MWel Combined Cycle Gas Turbine in North West
Europe. For the refinery heaters and boilers, the post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxy-fuel
scenarios have been assessed for both retrofit and new boiler cases in North West Europe. For the
FCC both post-combustion and an oxy-fired process have been considered for a Brownfield scenario
situated in South America. The scenarios assessed are approximated from real processes either
currently available from, or under development by, equipment suppliers, based on prices in June
2008. Table 12 summarises the cost results for capture only from the CCP, along with additional
studies that are relevant. It is important to note that a number of the low cost options are for advanced
technologies that are yet to be proven in the field and may never eventuate in the industry.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 22
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Table 12. Capture costs for various refinery process units, not including transport and storage.
Created based on Melien and Brown-Roijen (2009), and Lindsay et. al. (2009).
Process Captured Capture Type Retrofit or Avoided Cost
New Build [€/t]
Utilities, Combined Cycle Post-combustion New 28-75

Gas Turbine Pre-combustion New 27-76
Heaters and Boilers Post-combustion Retrofit 77
Pre-combustion Retrofit 49
Oxy-combustion Retrofit 44
Post-combustion New 96
Oxy-combustion New 50
Chemical Looping New 33-42
Combustion
Fluid Catalytic Cracker Post-combustion Retrofit 85
Oxy-fired Retofit 55
Hydrogen Production SMR Post New 19-53
combustion ($/€ = 0.75)
There were a number of studies undertaken prior to 2008, such as those highlighted by IPCC (Metz,
2006), which came at the end of a period of rapidly increasing construction costs and prior to the
economic downturn of that same year. These have not been included because they are considered less
relevant than more recent references. A study by Shell for retrofit of a generic refinery (Straelen et.
al., 2010) estimates the full chain cost costs for cumulative emissions, but are not specific about the
unit process. In that study, the CO2 avoided costs are reported to range from €90 to €125/t CO2
avoided for the flue gas streams requiring separation. The most economic is the high purity CO2
captured with amine separation from a hydrogen production gasifier, which only requires
compression and dehydration before transport and storage, costing ~€30/t CO2. This value is
supported by the Rotterdam climate initiative (2009) that predicts full chain cost for capture of CO2 in
a refinery of €24/t CO2. The main point of difference between the two studies is that the Shell Study
includes generic transport and storage costs. Another point of difference is that CCP assumes all flue
gases from small sources can be combined for central separation, whereas Shell considers this will be
less plausible because of space restrictions. This assumption means small capture and compression
units spread across the site will be required and lead to much higher costs on smaller CO2 streams. As
indicated earlier in this report, the CCS deployment potential for the refinery industry is in majority in
retrofits, given the limited growth in new refinery capacity. As the complexity of brownfield projects
is higher, costs will be higher than for greenfield developments.
ERM (2009) calculated costs for capture, transport and storage of CO2 on refinery heaters, boilers and
power plant and hydrogen plant. Capture on refinery heaters, boilers and power plant using amine
based post combustion process is estimated to cost €114/t CO2 avoided (published as $US152/t CO2
avoided). This is higher than the costs published by CCP, but closer to those published by Shell. ERM
estimate hydrogen plant capture of CO2 based on a steam methane reforming technology will cost
€33/t CO2 avoided (published as $US43/t CO2 avoided). These costs are more than the Rotterdam
Climate Initiative estimate, but in line with figure’s published by Shell.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 23
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
The costs for the refineries reported by both Shell and CCP, excluding capture from hydrogen
production, are higher than the more widely used figures of McKinsey (2008) for coal fired power
generation. This is as expected because the streams from refinery flue gases are much smaller than
power plants. Note that demonstration phase and first mover projects can expect to have higher costs
than more mature projects. Based on McKinsey (2008), long term costs will be about 50% of the
demonstration phase projects due to assumed learning rates with increased deployment capacity.
Based on the long term estimated costs of the CCP of between €28-€96/t CO2 avoided depending on
the unit operation, demonstration can expect to cost between €56-€192/t CO2 avoided. Independent of
the accuracy of the costs, the high costs associated with CO2 capture on refinery streams other than
hydrogen production, make them less attractive for CCS deployment in the near and medium term,
without incentives or subsidies of some kind.
5.3 Financing CCS
Financing of CCS is likely to come from a number of sources, especially initially in a demonstration
phase. In Europe, the price of carbon in EU-ETS will cover some of the costs, however, it is a very
uncertain price that will depend on a number of political factors. Based on literature review,
McKinsey&Company (2008) forecast a price of €30-48/tonne CO2 in 2015, which, it must be said, is
quite optimistic given today’s level (~€15/tonne). However, even with such a high carbon price, a
large cost gap for demonstration projects is likely for the power sector and even higher for some unit
operations in the refining sector. These cost gaps indicate that other sources of finance are required to
fast track CCS demonstration programmes.
Other sources of finance might include Government-sponsored R&D programmes that go toward
financing the CAPEX. Examples of this for the power-generating industry include the “UK
Competition”, EU EERP (the European Economic Recovery Programme) and the EU New Entrants
Reserve (NER300). In the UK the 4 CCS competition projects are to be in the electricity sector and
will be financed through a levy on electricity suppliers. In Europe, future CCS projects funded by the
EU NER300 will be financed through free allocation of emission credits under the EU ETS to
selected projects. In North America, the Alberta state government in Canada has offered funding from
its annual budget to a refinery capture project, as has the US DOE. Finally, if CCS is included under
CDM of the Kyoto Protocol, additional funding will be available that is especially targeted at
developing countries.
6 LEGISLATIVE PRESSURES ON REFINERY CARBON EMISSIONS

This section will focus on the specific laws relating to the refining industry, and to a lesser extent
general emissions reduction legislation such as the Kyoto Protocol. There are specific elements of the
emissions regulations that relate to the refining sector, more specifically carbon leakage, for which
mechanisms have been proposed to address the issue. Outside of the GHG reduction regulations there
are a number of fuel quality regulations which have implications for refinery GHG emissions. Prior to
implementing the fuels directive in 2005, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for the
Environment undertook a costs and benefits analysis of lowering the sulphur content of petrol and
diesel. Similar work has been undertaken to investigate the implications of the IMO proposal to
reduce marine heavy fuel sulphur levels from 2015. It is expected that similar costs and benefits will
be experienced when similar legislation is implemented in developing countries. An exception to this
is likely to be differences in the vehicle fleets of the developing countries, which will affect the
tailpipe emissions reductions. Legislative pressures that are the main focus of this report are the

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 24
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Transport fuel quality legislation, IMO MARPOL Protocol marine fuel specification, Kyoto Protocol,
and Emissions Trading Schemes.
6.1 Transport Fuel Quality Legislation
Fuel quality legislation takes many different forms around the world, and is put in place to reduce the
sulphur and particulate emissions from liquid fuel combustion in automobiles. The levels of
regulation is different for different nations, but has the same effect, in increasing the hydrogen
demand of the refinery and hence the CO2 emissions of the refinery. In Europe, the latest set of limits
placed on sulphur content of transport fuels was undertaken in order to allow engine combustion to
take place at higher temperatures. At higher temperatures the engine operates more efficiently
meaning less CO2 per unit travel, however, this increases NOx emissions. Catalytic processes are used
to reduce NOx, however, very low sulphur dioxide concentrations (<10ppm) are required to prevent
catalysts being poisoned by sulphur.
In the European context it is estimated that the additional refinery emissions due to this legislation
will total 5,400 kt CO2/y in 2020, with the CO2 emission reductions in the transport fleet likely to total
15,000 kt CO2/y by the same year (European Commission, 2001). The costs of the legislation were
calculated to be a maximum of €0.003 extra for petrol and €0.009 maximum extra for diesel, due to
refining process upgrades. The likely consumer savings due to a reduction in consumption will
average 2% for petrol users and 3% for diesel users (European Commission, 2001).
Brazil currently has 13 refineries and a total capacity of 1.9M bbl/d or 2.2% of the world’s capacity
(Kootungal, et. al., 2009). For Brazil there is expected to be a large impact from reducing sulphur
content to a single value of 50ppm for all diesel from the current 500ppm for metropolitan diesel and
2000ppm for rural diesel. This change will require existing plants to expand hydro-treating units
(HDT), hydro catalytic cracking (HCC) units and hydrogen production capacity. The increase in the
energy demand of the Brazilian refining sector resulting will be about 31% (Szklo & Schaeffer,
2006). This increase in energy usage will result in a 5.5 Mt/y increase in CO2 emissions (converted
from 1.5 MtC/y).
The AFRI-4 fuel specifications for fuel in Sub-Saharan Africa require a sulphur mass content of
150ppm for gasoline and 50ppm for diesel. There is potential for the implementation of the AFRI-4
specifications in Sub-Saharan to actually decrease the refining capacity of the region and increase
imports from Europe and the Middle East (ICF International, 2009). Implementation of the AFRI-4
specification in developing regions in Sub-Saharan Africa highlights the willingness to reduce the
sulphur emissions. Although information from other regions would indicate that these fuel
specifications will increase CO2 emissions, no studies have been found to forecast the exact impact of
AFRI-4. Analysing the effect of fuel specification changes on CO2 and climate change mitigation in
developing regions is an area for further work.
6.2 IMO MARPOL Fuel Specification Changes
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has proposed a reduction to the maximum permitted
sulphur content of marine fuels and heavy fuel oil regulated by the MARPOL Protocol. For special
SOx emissions control area’s (SECA’s), the sulphur content will reduce from 1.0% (10,000ppm) to
0.1% by 2015. Globally, limits outside the SECA’s are currently 3.5%, but will progressively reduce
to 0.5% by 2020, unless feasibility reviews before 2018 prove it is not worthwhile. As part of the
decision making process the IMO engaged EnSys to investigate the international impacts of lower
sulphur limits in MARPOL (IMO, 2007). Whilst investigating the impact on the CO2 emissions of the
refining industry in 2020, three scenarios were investigated. The base case is based on IEA estimates

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 25
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
of refined product demand in 2020 before recent financial crisis, so may now be an over estimate. The
Multi-SECA case is based on the establishment SECAs around the world and the range reflects
different sulphur specifications for the SECAs. The global distillate scenario assumes a switch to
distillate fuel for the whole of the maritime fleet to meet the sulphur specification. Table 13 shows the
potentially large increase of CO2 emissions resulting from these scenarios. The shift to distillate for
global maritime industry could result in a nearly 11% increase in refinery CO2 emissions, with the
SECA scenario’s resulting in smaller increases of about 2%.
Table 13: World refining industry CO2 emissions in 2020, based on different scenarios for
changes by the IMO to marine fuel specifications. Source: IMO, (2007)
IMO Base Multi-SECA Global
Case case Distillate
Total refinery CO2 emissions 1115 1141-1143 1248
[Mt/y]
Incremental CO2 emissions 26-28 133
versus base case [Mt/y]
More specific to Europe, both Pervin and Gertz (2009) and Entec (2010) have studied the likely
impacts to the maritime industry. Purvin and Gertz (2009) predict that the IMO regulation will have
the impact of increasing the CO2 emissions from European refineries by 5% in 2015. In 2020 the
impact is expected to be a 3% increase in CO2 emissions, because the increase due to the IMO
specification is partly offset by the reduced use of FCC units. Neither of the Purvin and Gertz (2009)
scenarios take into account the use of on-board scrubbers for reducing the SO2 emissions. The most
economic method for SOx abatement for most ships appears to be the installation of on-board SO2
scrubbers rather than purchasing low sulphur fuel. The price impact in the final product for SECA
areas with a 0.1% sulphur content is expected to be €200-€280/tonne which represents a cost increase
of 60% to 75%.The use of on-board scrubbing technology is expected to add €100/tonne to the cost of
fuel, however technical challenges relating to it’s implementation raise uncertainty to the extend to
which it will be implemented. For this reason Purvin and Gertz (2009) estimates of CO2 emissions
increases probably overstate the actual implications for the refining sector and offer a worst case
scenario.
The European study by Entec (2010) also expect a substantial increase in the price of fuel of between
€155 and €310, at an average of €230 or around 80% of fuel costs. The total compliance cost
associated with switching to low sulphur fuels is estimated to be €3.0-3.6 billion in 2015, with the
cost of on-board scrubbing likely to be 20-50% of this cost. Despite the large investment gap between
fuel switching and on-board scrubbing, uncertainty relating to availability and reliability of this
technology is likely to inhibit it’s up take by 2015 (Entec, 2010). There is potential for the large
investment costs and uncertainty to affect short sea shipping with a move to road and rail freight of
potentially 3-50% (Entec, 2010). The potentially greater rise in CO2 emissions in Europe compared
with global emissions is likely related to the proposal to make the Mediterranean a SECA.
6.3 Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
Under the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol Emission caps have been placed on developed, Annex
1, countries giving each country an emissions quota or allowable amount of CO2 emissions.
Developing (non Annex 1) countries have no requirement to cap their emissions but instead may
benefit from CO2 emission reducing projects financed by Annex-1 countries through the CDM. This
is a way for Annex 1 countries to earn credits by investing and funding climate friendly projects and

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 26
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
technologies in developing countries, thus helping control emissions in these countries. Out to 2012
there are registered savings of 3,000 MtCO2 (Carbon Trust, 2009), but this unlikely to be achieved
because of under-achievement of projects and delays in start up. It should be noted that currently CCS
does not fall under CDM but there are discussions undergoing in relation to this issue. Should the
CDM mechanism evolve to include CCS, it presents a potential mechanism for financing carbon
abatement in the refining sector of developing nations in the future. More specifically if CCS is
included in the CDM mechanism and what ever it should become under any future agreement that
replaces the Kyoto protocol, then it will become even stronger mechanism for financing such projects.
Balakrishnan (2009) suggests the key opportunities for CDM funding in the downstream refining
sector are:
1. Waste gas and/or heat recover
2. Steam system optimisation
3. Steam trap maintenance
4. Process integration
5. Fuel switching
6. Electrical energy efficiency
6.4 Emissions Trading Schemes

The EU currently has the largest of these schemes in place with only a small proportion of global
emissions currently covered. They allow for the trading of CO2 emissions for carbon credits. If a
country or industry exceeds their assigned amount of CO2 emissions, they would be able to purchase
credits from a country or industry that has not. Refineries are covered under the EU-ETS, however,
they have been granted free permits under initial phases, in an attempt to prevent carbon leakage.
How this will develop in the future is uncertain, but if the current trend of tightening the EU-ETS and
disallowing free handouts of credits is continues, refineries will be faced with a choice of having to
buy permits or reduce emissions, which may lead to an incentive to deploy CCS.
6.5 Carbon Leakage Mechanisms
Refineries operate with tight margins: In Europe and Asia these rarely rose above $US5/bbl for much
of the 90’s and early 00’s (See Figure 8), so any additional costs push the industry. At €20/tCO2 the
impact on the cost of carbon would reach $US 1/bbl entering the refinery (IEA, 2005), a substantial
amount considering the refinery margins in Figure 8. The addition of carbon tax or an emissions
trading scheme has the potential to encourage importation of product from regions not covered by the
same schemes, thus defeating the purpose of the emissions reduction legislation. Some organisations
have proposed schemes to add the cost of carbon to imports from regions that do not have legislation
in place to put the cost of carbon into the price of a product. The refining sector is expected to be at
risk of suffering from this mechanism and at present, it is currently addressed in the EU by allocating
free allowances to the refining industry. In the future, as allowances are reduced, many EU-based
refineries are expected to reduce production to meet their allocation, and input shortfalls, if no other
mechanism to protect them is introduced.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 27
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
25.00
20.00
Refinery Margin [US$/bbl]
15.00
USGC West Texas Sour Coking

NWE Brent Cracking
Singapore Dubai Hydrocracking
10.00
5.00
0.00
Sep-91 Jun-94 Mar-97 Dec-99 Sep-02 May-05 Feb-08 Nov-10
Quarter
Figure 8: Quarterly refining margins for three major refining products since the early 90's. The
products show Asian, European and North American. Source: BP 2009 Statistical Review of
World Energy.
7 CONCLUSIONS
There is an interest from the refining sector in CCS, as indicated by initiated demonstration projects in
North America and Europe such as the North West Refining project in Canada and the Air Products
project in Port Arthur, Texas, the European Test Centre (TCM), Mongstad, Norway and the
Rotterdam Climate Initiative, which is likely to include Shell Refinery emissions.
One challenge facing research on CCS in refineries, however, is the lack of consistent data on refinery
sector emissions. This is largely due to uncertainties in the existing IEA-GHG emissions database and
concerns in particular the operating proportion of the plants and the emissions factors of the plants.
Further work is required to form a more comprehensive database of existing refinery emissions and
their uncertainty. Based on the emissions inventories, further work is required to anticipate future
refinery CO2 emissions, and hence the role of CCS.
CCS is a technically feasible technology for reducing the CO2 emissions from the refining sector
through a range of post combustion, pre-combustion and oxy-fuel technologies. At present, however
there are a number of challenges that need to be overcome which are hindering widespread
deployment of CCS. In this assessment, barriers identified include policy, finance issues, and
technical barriers. Technical challenges relate to the numerous small distributed emission sources on a
refinery site and the space required to deploy CCS. These technical barriers are behind the relatively
high predicted deployment costs for CCS in most unit operations in the refining sector. Promising
technologies are in development that could reduce these costs, but commercial demonstration will be
the measure of real feasibility. Potential for early deployment of CCS in refineries exists for some
high purity CO2 streams, which are a by-product of certain hydrogen production processes, because

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 28
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
they require little processing and hence have low capture costs. Transport related emissions including
refining in China, India and rest of world including Middle East, Africa and Latin America have
potential to grow, hence there is potential for greenfield CCS deployment in these regions. In more
established markets such as the OECD, potential CCS deployment may be for retrofit of existing
refineries.
Note that policies that could encourage CCS in the refining sector have the potential to also reduce the
demand for transport fuels, and hence reduce the output and emissions from the refining sector. Other
legislation such the IMO MARPOL and transport fuel quality legislation is implemented to reduce the
environmental impacts of emissions such as SOx, NOx, and particulate mater. The extra processing
required to achieve these targets, however, are leading to an increases in the CO2 emissions of the
refining sector globally.
A more detailed analysis of the gaps and barriers to the deployment of CCS in the refining industry
has been undertaken in a structured process. Actions and milestones to overcome these have also been
identified as part of this process and these are outlines in the following sections.
7.1 Major Gaps and Barriers to Implementation
This section focuses on the major gaps and barriers specific to the refining sector and also those that
relate to other sectors1. The major gaps and barriers specific to refining industry are:
- CCS technology needs to be tested and demonstrated in the sector, specifically on integration
with existing operations. In addition it would benefit the sector to have a set of early projects
financially supported by Government or regulatory body, to help commercial deployment.2
- Regarding capture-ready design of new refineries: There is a need for incentives and design
guidelines for building capture ready refineries.
- Multiple CO2 sources and specifications is a unique characteristic of the refining industry and
hence different technologies may need to be implemented depending on source
- There is a lack of space on many refineries for installing new equipment, especially for large
diameter pipe work and new units likely to be required for CCS.
- International oil companies and state owned refineries have different motivations for
installing environmental technology. The implication of plant ownership on prospects of
implementation of CCS technology need to be recognized and addressed
- The persistently low refining margins will make additional emission-related investment a
challenging decision without clear government supported cost recovery mechanisms.2
- Refineries age, particularly old refineries in the OECD, and potentially limited lifetimes may
make it hard to financially justify implementing new capture technology.
- The issue of carbon leakage is a significant issue when regional mitigation is to be imposed.
- Non-conventional liquid fuels are expected to have a large impact on the sector, which may
restrict new build in coming decades.
Issues which are more commonly related to all sectors are:
1
Based on discussions at the Roadmap workshop in Abu Dhabi. During the second session of the Abu Dhabi meeting Alice Gibson of
Global CCS Institute moderated discussions which focused on issues specific to refining sector and more general issues.
2
Modified by reviewer

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 29
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
- General lack of training of CCS for technical professionals and managers

- Water & electrical supply security.
- CO2 specifications for sinks can always be met albeit at cost.
o (Need guidelines for CO2 specification final use and this needs to reflect regional
needs)
- International Legislation – to do with liability, both short and long term. Initially local
regulations may be used, but international regulations are required in the long term.
- Due to described inherent limitations, the costs of capture of CO2 from refineries are expected
to be significantly higher than costs from eg. power plants.3
7.2 Actions and Milestones

The perceived major actions and milestones for the refining sector are the following4:
Actions
- Comprehensive emissions inventory need to be developed and standard methodologies for
calculating need to be universally accepted.
- All low cost emissions abatement should be addressed to reduce capture inventory
- There is a need to characterise unique emissions specifications of each unit operation in order
to better determine the relevant technology.
- Develop specific training requirements and programs for the engineers involved in the
application and adapt existing qualifications to include the new CCS industry.
- Develop guidelines and specifications for both retrofit and capture ready that are specific to
refineries
- Conduct comprehensive pilot demonstrations to prove the technology in the sector as
refineries are not identical
- Knowledge transfer is required, specifically risk management from other areas where new
technology is used regularly
- There is a lack of information specific to the refining sector, hence there is a need for more
detailed study into the prospects and projections for CCS and other carbon abatement
technologies, for refining under different scenario’s5.
- Consolidate and disseminate JIP’s for CCS for the refinery sector6
3
Additional action identified by reviewer
4
Based on discussions at the Roadmap workshop in Abu Dhabi. The third session moderated by Dolf Geilen of UNIDO was dedicated to
identifying actions and milestones specific to the refining sector for role out CCS.
5
Additional action identified by the author.
6
Additional action identified by reviewer

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 30
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Milestones
Milestones are not addressed in an order of priority. Milestones that can easily be carried out by
forums such as that organised by UNIDO in the short term out to 2012 are:
- Follow up with IEA-GHG programme to identify how the above recognised issues may be
addressed within their research programs.
- Organize specific workshops with refinery technology providers to review how CCS can be
integrated in their designs
- Find local champions to further the cause of CCS in the developing regions
- Plan a timeline for demonstrating the technology in the refining sector
Milestones that will require global agreements in forums such as the UNFCCC process include:
- Achieving a global agreement on emissions reduction and more specifically the
implementation of the technology in refineries.
- Developing mechanisms to support technology transfer from developed to developing regions
and devising financing mechanisms
- Develop industry agreement for the implementation of the technology in refineries.
- Disseminate information to developing regions as it becomes available from developed
nations
- Develop local knowledge in CCS through enhanced technology transfer and training

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 31
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
8 REFERENCES
Allam, R., White, V., Stein, V., McDonald, C., Ivens, N., Simmonds, M. (2005) Revamping heaters
and boilers to oxyfiring – producing oxygen by the ITM technology. Carbon Dioxide Capture for
Storage in Deep Geological Formation, Volume 1, p513-535.
.BP, 2010. BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2010. bp.com/statisticalreview
Baars, F., Baerends, M., Hälsig, C. (2009). Source and reduction of CO2 emissions in different
refinery configurations. Paper presented by Fluor at 14th annual ETRC, Berlin, Germany, November
11, 2009.
Balakrishnan, T., (2009). CDM Opportunities in Downstream Refining Sector. Presentation given at
Downstream Asia Roundtable, 2nd Annual Meeting, 15 October 2009. EcoSecurities Group PLC
Carbon Trust, (2009). Global Carbon Mechanisms, Emerging lessons and implications.
www.carbontrust.co.uk
Carbon Trust, (2010), Tackling Carbon Leakage, Sector specific solutions for a world of unequal
carbon process. www.carbontrust.co.uk
Clark, S., (2000). CO2 Management – A Refiners perspective. Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd, Reading,
UK.
Concawe, (2007). Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the
European context - WELL-TO-TANK Report. Prepared for European Commission Joint Research
Centre.
Concawe, (2008). Impact of product quality and demand evolution on EU refineries at the 2020
horizon: CO2 emissions trend and mitigation options. Prepared by the Concawe Refining Technology
Support Group.
DNV, (2010). Qualification Procedures for CO2 Capture Technology, April 2010. Recommended
Practice DNV-RP-J201.
De Mello, L., Pimenta, R., Moure, G., Pravia, O., Gearhart, L., Milios, P., & Melien, T. (2008). A
technical and economical evaluation of CO2 capture from FCC units. Paper presented at Green House
Gas Technologies 9, Washington DC, USA. November 16-20 2008.
Energetics Incorporated, (2007). Energy and Environmental Profile of the US Petroleum Refining
Industry. Prepared for US Department of Energy Industrial Technologies Program.
EIPPCB. (2003). Reference document on best available technology for mineral oil and gas
refineries.Integrated pollution and control. Belgium: European Comission; February 2003
ERM, (2009). Financial Support Mechanisms for CO2 Capture and Storage. Report for CO2 Capture
Project, December 2009.
European Commission, (2001). The Costs and Benefits of Lowering the Sulphur content of Petrol and
Diesel to less than 10ppm. Directorate-General Environment. Sustainable Development Unit and Air
and Noise Unit, 9 September 2001.
European CO2 Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM), (2009). About TCM. From:
http://www.tcmda.no/about-tcm/
Gary, J., Handwerk, G., (2001). Petroleum Refining: Technology and Economics, fourth ed. CRC
Press, Florida.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 32
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Georgiadis, G., (20000). Refinery Technology. EuroMaTech

Gomes, G., Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R. (2009). The Impact of CO2 taxation on the configuration of new
refineries: An application to Brazil. Energy Policy 37, p5519-5529.
Hetland, J., Røkke, N., Røkke, P., LeGallo, Y., Evans, D., Eickhoff, C. (2008). Towards large-scale
co-production of electricity and hydrogen via decarbonisation of fossil fuels with CCS (geological
storage), Paper presented at Green House Gas Technologies 9, Washington DC, USA. November 16-
20 2008.
Hurst, P. & Walker, G. (2005). Post-Combustion Separation and Capture baseline studies for the CCP
Industrial Scenarios. Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geological Formation, Volume 1,
p117-131.
ICF Consulting. (2005). The Emerging Oil Refinery Capacity Crunch, A Global Clean Products
Overlook. www.icfconsulting.com
ICF International and EnSys Energy and Systems, (2009). Final Report Sub-Saharan African Refinery
Project, Volume II-A: Refinery Study. Report for World Bank and The African Refiners Association.
IEA GHG, (2000). CO2 abatement in oil refineries: fired heaters. Report PH3/31. IEA Greenhouse
Gas Programme, Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, UK.
IEAGHG, (2008). CO2 Emissions Database version 2008. IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Stoke
Orchard, Cheltenham, UK.
IEA, (2005). The European Refining Industry Under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme:
Competitiveness, trade flows and investment implications. IEA: Paris, France.
IEA, (2008a). CO2 capture and storage. A key carbon abatement option. IEA: Paris, France.
IEA, (2008b). Energy technology perspectives 2008 – scenarios and strategies to 2050. International
Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IEA, (2008c). World energy outlook 2008. International Energy Agency Publications. Paris, France.
IEA, (2009a). Energy technology transitions for industry – Strategies for the next industrial
revolution. International Energy Agency Publications, Paris, France.
IEA, (2009b). Technology roadmap – carbon capture and storage. International Energy Agency
Publications. Paris, France.
IEA, (2010). Energy technology perspectives 2010 – scenarios and strategies to 2050. International
Energy Agency, Paris, France
IMO (International Maritime Organisation), (2007). Review of Marpol Annex VI and the NOx
Technical Code. Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, 12th session, 20 December 2007.
Available:
http://www.martecma.com/presentations/REVIEW%20OF%20MARPOL%20ANNEX%20VI%20A
ND%20THE%20NOx%20TECHNICAL%20CODE%20BLG%2012-6-1%5B1%5D.pdf
IPIECA, (2005). International Policy Approaches to Address the Climate Change Challenge.
www.ipieca.org
IPIECA, (2006). Increasing the pace of Technology Innovation and application: enabling climate
change solutions. Summary report of IPIECA workshop in Washington CD, USA, 27-28 September
2006.

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 33
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
IPIECA, (2007). Oil and Natural Gas Industry Guidelines for Green House Gas Reduction Projects,
Part II: Carbon Capture and Geological Storage Emission Reduction Family. www.ipieca.org
Koottungal, L. et. al., (2009). 2009 Worldwide Refining Survey. Oil and Gas Journal – 21 Dec. 2009
Kuuskraa, V., (2009). Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geological Formations – results
from the CO2 Capture Project, Volume 3, p9-14.
Lange, M. (2010). The GHG Balance of Biofuels Taking into Account Land Use Change. Report by
Kiel Institute for the World Economics, report no.: 1619, April 2010.
LEK Consulting, (2009). An Ideal Portfolio of CCS Projects and Rationale for Supporting Projects.
Prepared for Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.
Lindsay, I., Lowe, C. Reddy, S., Bhakta, M., Balkenede, S. (2009). Designing a climate friendly
hydrogen plant. Energy Procedia 1 (2009) p4095-4102.
McKinsey and Company, (2008). Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics
McKinsey and Company, (2009a). Pathways to Energy and Carbon efficiency, Russia.
www.mckinsey.com
McKinsey and Company, (2009b). Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy, Version 2 of the Global
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. www.mckinsey.com
McKinsey and Company, (2010). CO2 abatement: Exploring options for oil and natural gas
companies. Available at:
https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Energy_Resources_Materials/CO2_abatement_Exploring_optio
ns_for_oil_and_natural_gas_companies_2517
Melien, T. (2005) Economic and cost analysis for CO2 Capture Costs in the CO2 capture project
scenarios. Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geological Formation, Volume 1, p47-87.
Melien, T. and Brown-Roijen, S., (2009) Economics. Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep
Geological Formation, Volume 3, p237-264
Mertens, J., (2009). Rising to the CO2 challenge, Part 1. KBC Process Technology Ltd, the
Netherlands. Published: Hydrocarbon Engineering, Novemeber 2009.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H., Loos, M., & Meyer, L. (2005). IPPC Special Report on
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
Miracca, I. (2009). CO2 Capture: Key findings, remain gaps, future prospects. Carbon Dioxide
Capture for Storage in Deep Geological Formations – results from the CO2 Capture Project, Volume
3, p273-275
Morin, J. & Be´al, C. (2005). Chemical looping Combustion of refinery fuel gas with CO2 capture.
Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geological Formation, Volume 1, p647-654,
OPEC, (2009). World Oil Outlook 2009. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Vienna,
Austria. www.opec.org
OPEC, (2010). OPEC and the Environment. Policy statement from:
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/press_room/OPEC_Environme
ntal_position.pdf on 16/6/10
Phillips, G., (2002). CO2 management in refineries. Foster Wheeler Energy Limited. Reading, UK

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 34
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Purvin and Gertz Inc., (2008). Study on Oil Refining and Oil Markets. Prepared for European
Commission
Purvin and Gertz Inc., (2009). Impacts on the EU Refining Industry & Markets of IMO Specification
changes & other measures to reduce sulphur content of certain fuels. Prepared for Directorate General
Environment.
Reuters, (2008). World’s 25 largest refining companies by capacity. Published in The Economic
Times – 5 December, 2008.
Rhudy, R., (2006). Chilled-Ammonia Post Combustion CO2 Capture System – Laboratory and
Economic Results. Update of report number 1012797, November 2006. Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California 94304-1338.
Roberts, S., (2010). The oil crunch, a wakeup call for the UK economy. The second report for the UK
industry taskforce on peak oil and energy security (ITPOES). URL: http://peakoiltaskforce.net/
Rootzen, J., Kjarstad, J. & Johnsson, F., (2009). Assessment of the potential for CO2 capture in
European heavy industries. In Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems.
Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Rotterdam Climate Initiative (2009). CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage in Rotterdam, 2009 Report.
DCMR Environment Protection Agency, www.dcmr.nl
SABS Commercial (Pty) Ltd, (2008). Understanding the Interaction and Contribution to Clean Air of
Fuel Specification, Inspection and Maintenance, and Vehicle Technology. Prepared for South Africa
Petroleum Industry Association (SAPIA). www.sapia.co.za
Self, F., Ekholm, E., & Bowers, K. (2000). Refining Overview – Petroleum, Processes and Products.
CD ROM produced by AIChE South Texas Section and Fuels and Petrochemicals Divisions
Simbeck, D., (2005). Hydrogen Costs with CO2 Capture. Published in Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, Volume II, p1059-1066.
Shell, (2010). Pearl GTL – an overview. www.shell.com From:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_strategy/major_projects_2/pearl/overview/ on
23/8/10.
Statoil, (2010). Mongstad thermal power plant. Published: 2007, updated: 2010. URL:
http://www.statoil.com/en/ouroperations/terminalsrefining/prodfacilitiesmongstad/pages/energiverkm
ongstad.aspx
Straelen, J. van, F. Geuzebroek, N. Goodchild, G. Protopapas, L. Mahony (2010) CO2 capture for
refineries, a practical approach. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4, p316-320.
Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R., (2007). Fuel specification, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in oil
refineries. Energy 32, p1075-1092.
TCM, (2010). Infocenter. From: http://www.tcmda.no/infocenter/ on 23/6/10
Tel-Tek, (2009). CO2 fangst av utslipp fra industrianlegg (Norwegian). Tel-Tek, Dept. GassTek
Kjoelnes Ring 18, N-3914 Porsgrunn, Norway.
The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, (2010). Large scale carbon capture and
storage at Mongstad. Memo dated: June 2010. URL:

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 35
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MANAGING RISK
Trans-Energy Research Associates, China Petrochemical Consulting Corporation & Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory, (2002). Improving Transport Fuel Quality in China: Implications for
the Refining Sector.
Wilkinson, M., Boden, J. Gilmartin, T., Ward, C., Cross, D., Allam, R. & Ivens, N. (2003) CO2
Capture from oil refinery process heaters through oxyfuel combustion. Greenhouse gas control
technologies, Volume 1, p69-74
World Energy Council, (2007), Carbon Capture and Storge: a WEC “Interim Balance”. Prepared for
World Energy Council (WEC) Cleaner Fossil Fuels Systems Committee. www.worldenergy.org

Revision No.: 3
Date : 2010-08-27 Page 36
Det Norske Veritas:
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) is a leading, independent provider of services for managing risk with a global
presence and a network of 300 offices in 100 different countries. DNV’s objective is to safeguard life,
property and the environment.
DNV assists its customers in managing risk by providing three categories of service: classification,
certification and consultancy. Since establishment as an independent foundation in 1864, DNV has
become an internationally recognised provider of technical and managerial consultancy services and
one of the world’s leading classification societies. This means continuously developing new
approaches to health, safety, quality and environmental management, so businesses can run smoothly
in a world full of surprises.
Global impact for a safe and sustainable future:
Learn more on www.dnv.com

Global Technology Roadmap For CCS in Refineries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Technology Roadmap For CCS in Refineries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Technology Roadmap For CCS in Refineries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Global Technology Roadmap for CCS

Report No./DNV Reg No.: / 12P5TPP-9

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REFINING SECTOR..............................................................1

3 CURRENT AND PROJECTED EMISSIONS .............................................................................8

4 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY ................................................11

5 ESTIMATED COSTS AND INVESTMENTS ...........................................................................22

6 LEGISLATIVE PRESSURES ON REFINERY CARBON EMISSIONS ...............................24

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REFINING SECTOR

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

World Refining Capacity

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

2.1 Outlook for Refining Sector

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

% Crude of Total 85.0 82.0 78.4 75.1

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

2.2 Refining Industry interest in CCS

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

3 CURRENT AND PROJECTED EMISSIONS

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

Table 4: Refinery configuration CO2 Emissions. Source: Mertens (2009)

Hydroskimming 0.08 - 0.15

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

OPEC 2009 World 85600 84600 90200 95400 100400 105600

World Refining 98318 103986 109436 115104

World Refining 107030 112210 116799 120843

Figure 4. Well-to-wheel transport CO2-equivalent emissions by region and by scenario. CCS is

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

4 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY

CO2 emitter Description % of total Concentration of

Hydrogen For numerous processes, refineries require 5-20% 20- 99%

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

4.1 Process Heaters

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

Cooling towers (water vapour) 8 million tonnes/y

Amine Reclaimer wastes (heat stable salts 150 tonnes/week

SOx unit (SO2 waste) 100 tonnes/week

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

Power generated 108 MW

Power Export 0.3 MW

O2 requirement 6889 tonne/d

Cooling water use 16,700 tonne/h

CO2 Captured 2.33 million tonne/y

CO2 Avoided 1.97 million tonne/y

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

DNV Reg. No.: 12P5TPP-9

Water make-up 67.5 m³/h 59.8 m³/h 59.8 m³/h

Water blow-out 15.1 m³/h 18.3 m³/h 18.3 m³/h

Cooling water 572.2 m³/d 288.3 m³/d 314.1 m³/d