AEP to Sell Captured CO2 to SemGreen for Enhanced Oil Recovery
19 October 2007
![]() |
Chilled ammonia process plant footprint. Click to enlarge. Source: AEP |
American Electric Power (AEP) and SemGreen L.P., a subsidiary of SemGroup L.P., have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the delivery and use of carbon dioxide captured by a planned commercial-scale carbon capture system on AEP subsidiary Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s Northeastern coal-fired power plant.
In March, AEP and Alstom signed a MOU to bring Alstom’s advanced sorbent post-combustion CO2 capture (chilled ammonia) process to full commercial scale by 2011. (Earlier post.)
The chilled ammonia process—one of several new processes being explored for post-combustion capture—chills the flue gas, recovering large quantities of water for recycle, and then utilizes a CO2 absorber in a similar way to absorbers used in systems that reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.
The remaining low concentration of ammonia in the clean flue gas is captured by cold-water wash and returned to the absorber. The CO2 is then compressed for enhanced oil recovery or storage. Studies by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) have indicated that ammonia scrubbing results in a 10% reduction in generated power, while the older MEA (amine scrubbing) cuts generated power by 29%.
AEP and SemGreen have agreed that CO2 captured at the Oklahoma powerplant will be transported to SemGreen through pipeline and technology provided by SemGreen. The CO2 would then be used or sold by SemGreen for enhanced oil recovery.
Under this MOU, AEP and SemGreen have begun the necessary engineering and design for the system.
This agreement with SemGreen represents an important step toward our goal of taking carbon capture technology to commercial scale. SemGreen and AEP will work together to develop and integrate an efficient system to compress and transport carbon dioxide captured at the plant.
Technology for carbon capture will continue to develop, but perhaps a more significant challenge is what to do with the CO2 once it is captured. Permanently storing it underground is one solution, but it would be best to find productive uses for the captured gas. Using the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery—where the gas is injected into older oil wells to improve production, then remains underground afterward—is a logical step for coal-fired plants near oil fields.
—Michael G. Morris, AEP Chairman, President and CEO
In its March announcement, AEP said it would pursue the first commercial use of carbon capture technologies on existing coal-fired power plants, with installation of a commercial-scale system planned for one of the 450-megawatt coal-fired units at Northeastern Station in Oologah, Okla., after the completion of a large-scale product validation on an AEP plant in West Virginia. Plans are for the commercial-scale system to be operational at Northeastern early next decade. It is expected to capture about 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 a year.
The Alstom technology will be installed for product validation on AEP’s 1300 MW Mountaineer Plant in New Haven, W.Va., where it will capture CO2 from a slipstream of flue gas from the plant. The slipstream will be equivalent to between 20 and 30 megawatts of generation, an increase from the 10 megawatts included in the March announcement. The Alstom chilled ammonia system is expected to capture between 100,000 and 200,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, which will be injected for geological storage in deep saline aquifers at the site.
Battelle Memorial Institute is serving as the consultant for AEP on geological storage at Mountaineer. In 2002, Battelle, AEP, the US Department of Energy and others sponsored the world’s first site-specific investigation of carbon storage capabilities at the Mountaineer plant. During the investigation, an approximately 9,000-foot exploratory well and seismic studies determined that the site was suitable for deep geological storage of CO2.
The validation project at Mountaineer will begin in late 2008, or after completion of a small-scale pilot demonstration of the technology by Alstom and the Electric Power Research Institute on a Wisconsin plant.
Once commercial viability of the technology is validated at Mountaineer, AEP plans to install Alstom’s chilled ammonia technology on Northeastern Station in Oklahoma.
American Electric Power is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, delivering electricity to more than 5 million customers in 11 states. AEP ranks among the nation’s largest generators of electricity, owning more than 38,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the US. AEP also owns the nation’s largest electricity transmission system, a nearly 39,000-mile network that includes more 765 kilovolt extra-high voltage transmission lines than all other US transmission systems combined.
AEP’s transmission system directly or indirectly serves about 10% of the electricity demand in the Eastern Interconnection, the interconnected transmission system that covers 38 eastern and central US. states and eastern Canada, and approximately 11% of the electricity demand in ERCOT, the transmission system that covers much of Texas.
Resources:
AEP and Climate Change (AEP presentation)
I always wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient to operate high-temperature, solid-oxide fuel cells with Syngas as fuel. Only oxygen ions pass through the electrolye, thus you have almost pure CO2 (plus H20) in the exhaust, and don't have to worry about the inert N2 from air (as that never enters the exhaust gas).
SOFCs using methane are already being commercialized as small residental power plants (using methane - natural gas - from the grid). They produce up to 5 kW electricity and 20 kW heat - it should be viable to build a SOFC with CO/H as fuel. That can come from a methane reformer, coal gassification or steel mill waste gas...
Sequestration of an almost pure CO2 exhaust gas would be a straight forward process...
Posted by: rs | 19 October 2007 at 03:08 AM
If you would want to build a 1500 MW plant using fuel-cells, it would cost you a lot. Moreover, dirty coal contains a lot of unfriendly components for your fuel cell.
On the other hand, using pure O2 for burning the coal in a classical plant would also deliver a un almost pure CO2 waste-stream. Additionaly, any S, Hg, Pb, U,... in the waste gasses can simply be pumped underground (where it comes from).
Two problems arise : burning coal in pure O2 provides a combustion gasses which are too hot, melting the installation. Recirculation CO2 (and mixing it with the pure O2 prior to combustion) can cool the temperature enough, so it can be used in the actual boilers.
The other problem is evidently acquiering pure oxygen. Molecular sieves under development will hopefully provide cheap pure oxygen.
In my opinion, it will certainly be much cheaper and energy-efficient than CO2 scrubbing.
Moreover, since no nitrogen gas is heated in the process (80% of air-volume) there is an additional elimination of heat-loss.
The advantage of this method is that a relatively small adaptation of actual power plants could allow implementation of this technique.
Posted by: Alain | 19 October 2007 at 03:59 AM
I'd like to see cost comparisons for EOR by steam generated at the well head (perhaps using some gas or oil) and maybe some surfactant vs compressed CO2. The latter may well be a better substance for the purpose but it comes with a heavy energy penalty, unlike cooled steam it will escape if pressure is not maintained and is not easily separated if comingled.
Let me put it this way, EOR using captured CO2 seems like 'a solution looking for a problem'. The bogus economics comes from carbon credits created by gullible politicians.
Posted by: Aussie | 19 October 2007 at 05:12 AM
Yay more oil! Yay!
Posted by: Jeffrey00 | 19 October 2007 at 07:29 AM
all that money spent on carbon sequestration.. and we are not even sure it contributes anything significant to global warming, and we are not even sure global warming is real.. and if it is real do we really want to stop it?
All that money that could be better spent educating people and raising their standard of living..
Posted by: Herm Perez | 19 October 2007 at 08:12 AM
"we are not even sure global warming is real.. and if it is real do we really want to stop it?"
Wow. Hadn't heard that one before, even here! That's how to win against the Arabs-- turn up the heat :-) And what Swede in his right mind wouldn't want to replace all that snow with a permanent sauna? :-)
Alain,
The separation of O2 from air is intriguing. I'd have assumed this would only reduce the nitrogen oxides from flue gas. Would this improve the ability to screen other impurities as well, e.g., wouldn't the sulfur not react with the oxygen still? Or would that still be scrubbed out under this scenario?
Posted by: Jim G. | 19 October 2007 at 09:07 AM
@Aussie -
I suspect that EOR using CO2 injection is considered very much a tertiary production mechanism that will only be used on reservoirs that no longer yield commercially adequate quantitities of oil using steam injection. The CO2 reduces the viscosity of the remaining oil but won't chemically react with it. Most of it should dissolve in the crude oil underground and stay there.
The fraction that does come up with what oil can still be produced could perhaps be re-captured and re-used at the well head. It's not immediately clear if that is what will actually happen. There is as yet no law against releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, so it depends on the cost of CO2 recycling at the well head vs. buying additional CO2 from a coal- or gas-fired power plant (or an intermediary like SemGreen).
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 19 October 2007 at 09:14 AM
If the water and CO2 recovered with the chilled ammonia process are clean enough, they could be used for intensive algaculture once enhance oil recovery from fields near the coal- or gas-fired power plants is no longer viable.
Another factor worth considering is that the heat extracted from the flue gases with the chilled ammonia could perhaps be used to co-generate some power using a Kalina cycle. If so, it could further reduce the energy penalty of CO2 scrubbing and sequestration.
Kalina cycles are currently only used in certain geothermal applications.
http://www.xorka.com/files/kalina2005.pdf
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 19 October 2007 at 09:31 AM
Jim, any element in the fuel would oxidize at that temperature in pure oxygen. Sulfur reacts to SO3, all metals react to oxides. But since you don't need scrubbing anymore (because the whole exhaust can be sequestered) it's much simpler. You don't have to filter all the different pollutants out of the flue gass. Just compress everything and pump it underground.
Since the only tricky part is filtering pure oxygen out of the air (at low temperature, with very little other stuff that can destroy the membranes) it should be much easier to implement than post-combustion scrubbing.
Posted by: Alain | 19 October 2007 at 04:38 PM