Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

1. Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships “Developing Infrastructure And Validating Carbon Sequestration Technologies” 21-24 February 2005 John Litynski Environmental Projects Division Presented at: USDA Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry

2. Drivers

3. Fossil Energy America’s Energy Foundation 2002 Oil 40% 98 Quads Renewables 7% Coal 23% Fossil fuels provide 86% of energy Gas 24% Nuclear 6% + 40% 2025 Oil 39% 136 Quads Coal 23% By 2020, reliance on fossil fuels remains stable at 87% Renewables 6% Gas 24% Nuclear 8% Source: AEO 2004

4. Speculative GHG Stabilization Scenario to Meet Goals of the Global Climate Change Initiative Gap: 5.3 Gt CO2 / yr Business As Usual Gt CO2 eq / year U.S. emissions stabilization at 2001 level NETL/ARI/Energetics 2004

5. Other Potential Drivers • Federal Policy – Senate bills introduced • McCain Lieberman – Mandatory cap and trade • Hagle – Voluntary reduction, tax incentives • State policy – both mandatory and voluntary • Over 25 states drafted and/or passed GHG legislation • NE (RGGI) States and CA most aggressive • 1605(b) GHG Voluntary Registry • GHG Exchange Markets • Overseas Markets (Kyoto) • U.S. Voluntary Markets – Chicago Climate Exchange

6. Part of the Solution

7. Large Potential Worldwide Storage Capacity 200,000 Potential Capacity Range Capacity (GtC) 6.5 Gigatons Deep Ocean Deep Saline Formations Depleted Oil & Gas Reservoirs Coal Seams Terrestrial Annual World Emissions Storage Option Storage Options: IEA Technical Review (TR4), March 23, 2004 Carbon Capture & Sequestration Program @MIT World Emissions: DOE/EIA, International Energy Outlook 2003, Table A10

8. Sequestration Enables StabilizationCould Account For > 60% of “Gap” in 2050 Agriculture Significant Role in 2012 (~30%) Smaller role in 2050 (~3%) Bridge to Technology H2 w/ sequestration CO2 Capture and Storage Gt CO2 eq / year Non-CO2 GHGs Forestation and Agriculture Efficiency and Renewables DOE/FE/NETL Analysis 2004

9. International Infrastructure Regional Partnerships Monitoring, Mitigation & Verification Sequestration Integration FutureGen U.S. DOE/ Fossil Energy Sequestration Program Core R&D Separation & Capture of CO2 Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum Non-CO2 GHG Mitigation Break- through Concepts

10. Representing: • 244 Organizations • 40 States • 4 Canadian Provinces • 3 Indian Nations • 34% cost share Cost Share 34% DOE $13.3M Partnership $6.9M Big Sky Plains Midwest West Coast Illinois Basin Southwest Southeast Seven Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipsAwarded Sept 2003

11. Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipsDeveloping Infrastructure for Wide Scale Deployment • Baseline region for sources and sinks • (geologic and terrestrial) • Create action plans for regulatory, liability, environmental, and outreach issues • Establish monitoring and verification protocols These partnerships - 4 to 10 across the country, each made up of private industry, universities, and state and local governments - will become the centerpiece of our sequestration program. They will help us determine the technologies, regulations, and infrastructure that are best suited for specific regions of the country. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham November 21, 2002 • Assess benefits to region • Validating sequestration technology & infrastructure • Phase 1 - design • Phase 2 - testing

12. Two-Phased Approach Phase I (Characterization) • 7 Partnerships (40 states) • 6 considering terrestrial • 24 months (2003-2005) Phase II (Field Validation Tests) • $100 million • 4 years (2005-2009) • ~$14.3 million DOE funding / project • Approximately 7 regions Phase III – 2009-2013 ??

13. Big Sky Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipMontana State University - Bozeman • Agriculture, rangelands, and forestry • Conducting regional, aggregate analysis in support of policies for GHG reductions • Appropriate MMV technologies • Advanced systems (NIR, LIBS) • Carbon Accounting Frameworks • C-Lock (Expand to WY, MT, and ID) • National Carbon Offset Coalition Source: SDSMT

14. Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipBattelle Memorial Institute / Ohio State University • Early deployment options at low cost • No-till  Afforestation  Conversion Grasslands  Wetland Restoration • Biophysical potential of increased C in soils, biomass and litter • MRCSP region represents significant CO2 offset technical potential • Total Annual C Accumulation: 39.1 MMT • MRCSP region may offset 20% of CO2 emissions in region in Terrestrial Sinks • MRCSP 20 Year C Accumulation: 773 MMT Source: MRCSP

15. Plains CO2 Reduction PartnershipUniv. of N.D. – Energy and Environmental Research Center • Focus on two significant regional sinks • Agricultural soils (152 MMTCE) • Wetlands (374 MMTCE) • Agricultural Soils (NDSU) • Conversion to no-till or grass lands • Economic vs. technical potential • Perennial grasses are promising • Glaciated North American Prairie Wetlands • (USGS and Duck Unlimited Canada) • Active sink for 2-3X longer than Ag soils • Long term offset of other GHG emissions • Couple with perennial grasses Source: USGS

16. Southwest Partnership on Carbon SequestrationN.M. Institute of Mining and Technology • Focusing on in Agriculture, Rangelands, and Forests • Terrestrial sequestration in region is naturally limited by low average annual precipitation and the variability in precipitation • Even in systems managed for carbon storage, wet years followed by a series of dry years may result in a net carbon flux from the system. • Requires large scale implementation to reduce risks caused by variability in rainfall

17. West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipCalifornia Energy Commission • Afforestation of Suitable Range Lands • 9.3 million suitable hectares in CA • Offset up to 12% of current CO2 emissions in entire region • Forestry • Lengthen rotations of existing stands • Thinning to reduce fire risk matched with bio energy production • Fire is single largest source of CO2 from Terrestrial • MMV Key technical issue – MMV • Test California Climate Registry accounting protocols Source: Winrock Int

18. Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipSouthern States Energy Board • Afforestation • Underproductive farm and grazing lands • Bio-energy plantations • Large potential in LMAV • 16 M acres bottom land hardwoods available • Existing stand management

19. Other Phase I Accomplishments • Outreach and education mechanisms • Stakeholders – power companies, utilities, NGOs • Public (stakeholder meetings, Public TV, Factsheets) • Carbon Sequestration Atlases • GIS based regional systems & support to NATCARB • Decision support tools • Identify best opportunities • MMV technologies and protocols being identified • satisfy DOE/USDA 1605b voluntary guidelines and State registries • Address permitting guidelines

20. Phase II Goals • Perform regional technology validation tests for 2012 technology assessment (15-25 field sites) • Refine and implement MMV protocols • Continue regional characterization • Regulatory compliance activities • Implement public outreach and education • Identify commercially available sequestration technologies ready for large scale deployment • Regional partnerships program integration Not a technology development program!

21. Conclusion • Fossil fuels, especially coal, are plentiful and important to the United States energy security • Terrestrial sequestration can play a significant role in offsetting carbon emissions • Regional partnerships needed to speed acceptance and adoption by emitters and future markets

22. Visit the NETL Sequestration Website www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/