echno-economic Modelling nd Engineering onsiderations of CO2 pelines !

ma Ghazi

marron Engineering Ltd.

opics to Discuss

S and CO2 Pipelines

ory of CO2 Pipelines

hno-economic Modelling of CCS Systems

culation of a Pipeline Diameter

pital Cost Modelling of CO2 Pipelines (Pre-FEED)

echno-economic Case Study

se Envelope and Impact of Impurities

act of Temperature and Pressure on Density

cture Control of CO2 Pipelines

Carbon Capture, ? , and torage (CC?S)

he captured CO2 stream has to be transported from he source to the sink.

Onshore options: tank trucks (with trailers), railways, nd pipelines

Offshore options: ships and pipelines

arge volumes onshore: pipelines

or better project economics, CO2 has to be ressurized and cooled prior to pipeline transportatio

d Modelling of a CCS or CO -EOR ject

2

ssess the technical and economic viability of the pro

erves as a decision-making tool for the private and ublic sector (i.e. to go or not to go).

rovides reliable results provided that the technical ssessment of the project is well intertwined with its

dels

techno-economic model can be a useful tool if the applicab d validity of the assumptions are veried.

ver-simplication should be avoided, e.g. $500,000 / km

e number of xed-value assumptions for critical variables s minimized, e.g. xed temperature or compressibility.

e user of the model should understand the assumptions an

nalysis Notes of Caution

ver-simplication or making wrong assumptions can ad into making poor recommendations for major dustrial projects.

oor recommendations can result in major economic nd social) losses.

is time consuming to synchronize the technoconomic variables across the full chain of CCS

O2 Pipeline Transport

ysis of Different Techno-economic Mod

ansporting CO2 via Different Methods

Temperature (

sting or Planned CO2 Pipelines in the U

xamples of Existing CO2 Pipelines

nyon Reef Carriers (CRC) Pipeline: Built in 1972, 35 m, NPS 16, from McCamey, TX to SACROC oil eld i xas (Owned by KM)

argest CO2 Pipeline: Built in 1986, 808km, NPS 30, ortez Colorado to Denver City Texas, 20 Mt / year (K

eyburn Pipeline: Built in 2000, 330 km, NPS 12, Coa asication Plant in North Dakota to Weyburn Oil Field K, Canada (Cenovus)

ansmission Pipelines (USA)

About 4,000 Miles of CO2 Pipelines

278,000 Miles of Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines

55,000 Miles of Crude Oil Trunk Lines

95,000 Miles of rened petroleum products: gasoline et fuel, home heating oil and diesel fuel

Source: http://www.pipeline101.com/overview/energy-pl.html

me of the CO2 Pipeline Parameters

he locations of source and sink identify the start and nish (delivery) points of the pipeline.

he pipeline route has to be optimized (economic, nvironmental, social and political considerations)

Diameter and Wall-Thickness

culation of a Pipelines Diamete

Re=U.Di/

Reyn Num

Da Fric fac

Da Weis Pres

peline Capital Cost Calculations

ike calculation of pipelines diameter a capital cost del cannot be universally applied.

ious location-specic cost elements

st implications of different governing regulations that pact the nal cost of a specic CCS or CO2 pipeline ject

Capital Cost Modelling

imited cost data available for construction of CO2 pipelines

he available capital cost data for natural gas pipelines can sed as the cost of construction is largely independent of th ransported uid. [can lead into under-estimation of cost]

he cost data should be normalized to one reference year, preferably to the current year.

Cost normalisation: the projects value for return-on-equity ROE) rate, return-on-debt (ROD) rate, and each orresponding years ination rate have to be accounted for

hrough regression analysis it is possible to derive an equat hat provides a best-t to the available cost data, (highest

sults of Regression Analysis*

Pipeline Capital Cost = Pipeline Capital Cost onshore + Pipeline Capital C

eline Capital Cost onshore () =

*106 *[(0.057*Lonshore+1.8663) + (0.00129*Lonshore)*Do + (0.000486*Lonshore - 0. T

eline Capital Cost offshore () =

06 * [(0.4048*Loffshore + 4.6946) - 0.00153*Loffshore + 0.0113)* Do + (0.000511* Lo 24)* Do2]

he Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cluster

rkshire-Humber Regions Techno-econom gures

Variable Value 40 413 (X60) 12.5 10.0 1616.7 30 20 109 135 244 800 =6.06*10-5 0.72 Cost Item Total Capital (Million ) O&M (Mill ) Normalized Cost (/tonne) Pipe Variable Pipe O.D. (Inch) Wall Thickness (mm)

esign Life (yrs) SMYS (MPa)

P-inlet (Mpa)

Valu

P-outlet (Mpa) m (kg/s) T-max (C) T -ave (C)

48

25.5

-onshore (km)

Cost (M

-offshore (km) L-total (km)

ensity (kg/m3)

Viscosity (Pa.s) D.F.

r CCS System

t should be a well-coordinated effort between those nvolved in designing the capture, compression, ransport, injection, EOR and sequestration aspects he overall system.

Unwanted challenges if each part is designed in solation.

For example: 1) the required delivery pressure and emperature downstream dictate the compression an cooling requirements upstream and 2) the required chemistry of the stream to be injected can impact the

nvelope

ssure (bar)

Temperature (C)

ct of Pressure and Temperature on Density

ew questions on CO2 Pipelines ety Design Considerations

CO2 corrosive?

hich one favors a safer design: a higher or lower perating pressure in the dense phase?

hich impurities are worst?

rrest of Long Running Brittle nd Ductile Fractures!

he pipeline shall have adequate toughness against acture propagation.

rittle fractures are controlled by designing so the material would be on the upper-shelf of its energyemperature curve during the pipeline operation.

owering operating temperature or removing impuritie hat have a lower critical temperature than of CO2s w ssist with fracture control

ow about the impact of pressure on fracture?

ressure-Enthalpy for CO2

Text Text

ecompression from 17 MP

ecompression from 21 MP

ecompression from 25 MP

esign Optimization

he optimum MOP for all pipe sizes is close to 25 MPa

Higher pressures are not expected to further reduce cost

At 25 MPa the wall is already thick enough from the Barlow quation that easily achievable toughness can prevent fractures

5 MPa is close to pressure rating of 1500 Class anges and th ost of 2500 Class anges puts a step in the optimization curve

More economic to use wall thickness and toughness to prevent uctile fractures rather than fracture arrestors to limit the length actures

But main benet of higher MOP is safetypipeline will leak rath han burst giving the operator time to locate and repair it withou

MLBV and Blow-down Conguration

LBVs are typically full-bore ball valves: they respond ore easily than gate valves under high differential ressures

alve assemblies include two blow-down stacks and a y-pass between them to help with loading and ressuring sections of the line.

ispersion model studies should be done to help plan e MLBV locations, blow down time and an ERP.

LBV and Blow-down Conguration

Use of elastomers in the seats is not recommended Teon Preferred)

Valve assemblies should be shop fabricated, pre-test and coated before eld installation (hydro-test to 1.5x design pressure)

Typical blow-down time for a section of the line could be up to 3 hours.

LBV and Blow-down Conguration

Source: Cimarron (2012)

e that the full pressure and temperature drop occurs across the assembly out

 nima_ghazi@cimarron.ab.ca

Thank You"