SO2 AND CO2 EMISSION CONTROL WITH CANSOLV SO2 AND CO2 CAPTURE SYSTEMS Opportunity Crudes Conference – Houston, October 26, 2010
Rick Birnbaum - richard.birnbaum@shell.com Sales Manager – Oil and Gas
Copyright CANSOLV Technologies Inc.
October 2010
1
Disclaimer statement
This document contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘plan’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘will’’, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘target’’, ‘‘risks’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘should’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this Report, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for the Group’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserve estimates; (f) loss of market and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including potential litigation and regulatory effects arising from recategorisation of reserves; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, project delay or advancement, approvals and cost estimates; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this document. Neither Royal Dutch Shell nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this document. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proved reserves that a company has demonstrated by actual production or conclusive formation tests to be economically and legally producible under existing economic and operating conditions. We use certain terms in this presentation, such as “oil in place" that the SEC's guidelines strictly prohibit us from including in filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575 and disclosure in our Forms 6-K file No, 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov. You can also obtain these forms from the SEC by calling 1-800-SEC0330. October, 2010
2
AGENDA Introduction Resid Combustion and Cogen – Option for Bottoms Management Overview of SO2 Scrubbing – Non-Regenerable Options Overview of SO2 Scrubbing - CANSOLV Regenerable Scrubbing Economic Comparison – Regenerable and Non Regenerable CANSOLV CO2 Scrubbing System Project Execution, An alternative approach Conclusions October, 2010
3
API DENSITY; WT% S IN IMPORTED NORTH AMERICAN CRUDES
October, 2010
4
SPOT PRICE HISTORY OF ARAB HEAVY VS WT CRUDES
Source - EIA
Uncertain differential between sweet and sour crudes Requires versatile strategy
October, 2010
5
REGULATORY ISSUES AND FOCUS ON SO2 AND CO2
PRESSURES
Marpol; ULSD; RFG etc.:
Reduce/Eliminate Sulfur in Refined Products
•
Atmospheric Emissions:
Reduce Sulfur
•
US Consent Decrees:
Less Sulfur to Atmosphere
•
Green House Gas:
Reduce Carbon Emissions; CCS
•
Future Emissions Controls?
Reduced Sulfur to Air/Water; CCS retrofit
October, 2010
6
BOTTOMS MANAGEMENT PROCESSING OPTIONS •
Hydrocracking - Add H2 Larger H2 plant; Increased Natural Gas Demand • Adds H2S to SRU feed • Added Refinery fuel Demand •
•
Thermal Options - Remove Carbon •Coking;
Visbreaking; De-asphalting
• High Sulfur Byproduct and Distillates Add Sulfur to Distillate pool • Add H2S to SRU feed • Added Refinery fuel Demand •
•Cogen
SO2 Scrubbing
•On
Site Steam and Power Generation •Versatile Feed Mix •Requires complex fuel management systems •Requires NOx; Particulate; SOx Management •Applies where markets for resid are unavailable •Applies where balancing natural gas fuels are expensive October, 2010
7
NON-REGENERABLE SO2 SCRUBBING Non – Regenerable
Characteristics -
Limestone
Lime
Caustic (NaOH)
Sodium Carbonate (Trona)
-
-
-
Once through reagent - NaOH - Simple, higher cost – Liquid - Limestone/Lime – Low cost; Significant Materials Management Throw-away byproduct Dewatering and solids management - Accommodating WWT Low Capital Cost Some potential for byproduct - Wallboard Gypsum - Ammonium Sulfate Most suitable for low sulfur applications
October, 2010
8
CAUSTIC (NaOH) SCRUBBING Utility Boiler ESP Economizer Air to Air Exchange
Scrubber
Caustic Management Caustic Storage
Caustic Unloading
To Stack Water
Fuel
Air Bottom Ash
Air Fly Ash
Combustion System Flue Gas Pretreatment Dust removal - Dry ESP
1.25 t NaOH Consumed/t SO2 2.2 t Na2SO4 Produced/t SO2
Waste H2O
Byproduct Oxidation
Boiler Air to Air Exchange
October, 2010
9
LIME (CaO) SPRAY DRY Utility Boiler Lime Spray Economizer Dry Air to Air Exchange Scrubber
ESP
To Stack Lime Slaking
Fuel
Water Dry Ash/ Gypsum
Air
Lime Storage
Lime Unloading
Dry Ash/ Gypsum
Bottom Ash
Combustion System Flue Gas Pretreatment Dust removal - Dry ESP Boiler Air to Air Exchange
1 t CaO Consumed/t SO2 2.2 t CaSO4 Produced/t SO2
October, 2010
10
LIMESTONE (CaCO3) SCRUBBING Utility Boiler ESP Economizer Air to Air Exchange
Prescrubber
Grinding and Slurry Feed
H2O
Limestone Unloading
Limestone Storage
Limestone Unloading
To Stack Fuel
1.7 t CaCO3 Consumed/t SO2 2.2 t CaSO4 Produced/t SO2 H2O Air Bottom Ash Fly Ash
Waste H2O Air
Combustion System Flue Gas Pretreatment Boiler Air to Air Exchange
Dust removal - Dry ESP Quench/Cool - Prescrub
Byproduct Oxidation
Gypsum Management Thickener/Dewatering Long Term Storage Stack
October, 2010
11
REGENERABLE SO2 SCRUBBING Regenerable
Characteristics -
Diamine
Sodium sulfite/bisulfite
-
-
-
Regenerable Solvent - Solvent attrition/loss rate defines reagent makeup - Gas/Liquid technology – Just like Amines and H2S Pure, wet SO2 produced - Enhances capacity of exising SRU - Acceptable feed for Sulfuric Acid unit Small waste stream - purge stream from prescrubber - Purge stream from sulfate management system High capital option Main operating cost is steam Most suitable for high sulfur applications October, 2010
12
CANSOLV SO2 SCRUBBING Utility Boiler ESP Economizer Air to Air Exchange
Prescrubber
Amine Absorber
Amine Purification/ Unit (APU)
Regen O/H System
Regenerator Cansolv Battery Limits
To SRU
To Stack APU
Fuel
Air
Steam
Bottom Ash Fly Ash
Wash H2O Waste H2O
Combustion System Boiler Air to Air Exchange
Flue Gas Pretreatment
SO2 Management
Dust removal - Dry ESP Quench/Cool - Prescrub
SO2 Capture SO2 Regeneration
October, 2010
13
COMPARISON OF COST COMPONENTS - CANSOLV vs CAUSTIC
Operating Costs Basis NaOH - $300/t Steam - $10/t October, 2010
Mtnce. – 3% of TIC
14
COST COMPARISON - CANSOLV vs NON REGENERABLE
NPV Summary (10%) Cansolv Caustic Limestone Limestone S/D
4.6% S 1.0 1.3 1.1
2.6% S 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 October, 2010
1.1
15
COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR OP COST
Boiler Sizing Basis Fuel Feed Rate – t/hr Sulfur in Fuel – wt% Boiler Power Production – MWe SO2 Capture Capacity – t/year SO2 Content of Flue gas – vppm Utility Costing Basis Cooling Water Steam Electricity DI Water Utility Water Chemicals NaOH Limestone 100% NaOH Lime Waste - Dry Basis Na2SO4;CaSO4 Byproduct Credit – Elemental Sulfur
Flue Gas Basis 4.6% Sulfur Case 35 4.6 160 28,000 2,400
Flue Gas Basis 2.6% Sulfur Case 35 2.6 160 16,644 1,400
$0.02/m3 $10.00/t $0.085/kWh $1.80/m3 $1.00/m3
$0.08/kgal $4.55/klb $0.085/kWh $6.8/kgal 3.80/kgal
$300/t $30/t $100/t $20/t
$272/st $27/st $91/st $18 $55/st
$60/t
October, 2010
16
CONCLUSIONS – SO2 SCRUBBING
Non – Regenerable Scrubbing is preferred where:
SO2 Content is low
Reagents are easily available
Landfill and wastewater resources are available
Plot space can accommodate reagent preparation and waste conditioning
Regenerable Scrubbing is preferred where:
SO2 content is high
Landfill and wastewater resources are not available or limited
Cost of steam and cooling water is low
Sulfur Recovery Unit and byproduct chain is available to consume SO2 October, 2010
17
2.0
CANSOLV CO2
October, 2010
18
1
CANSOLV CO2 CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION Cansolv CO2 technology is based on more than 10 years experience in flue gas treating (SO2) Similar Amines Similar process line-ups and energy integration Same operating philosophy
Synergies with Shell experience in gas treatment in oil and gas industry
October, 2010
19
SO2 & CO2 CAPTURE DEMONSTRATION PLANT
Client: RWE npower, United Kingdom 50 ton/day CO2 capture (~3 MW) 12 % vol CO2 & 1,000 ppmv SO2 Start-up 2011
Objectives:
Develop improvements to current commercial process
Long term stability tests of new solvents Evaluation of new integration schemes
October, 2010
20
WORLD LEADING CARBON CAPTURE EPC PROJECT Project: Integrated Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) Project Boundary Dam
Client: SaskPower Corporation
Project Outline:
Flue gas CO2 and SO2 flue gas capture from Unit#3 of the Boundary Dam Power plant. Capture capacity of 3,500 metric tons/day CO2 CO2 use: Enhanced Oil Recovery SO2 converted to sulfuric acid
Scope of Services: Front End Engineering Design phase (FEED), Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC), Commissioning, Operator Training
October, 2010
21
CANSOLV SO2 SCRUBBING SYSTEM
To Stack
SO2 Product
Caustic Polisher NaOH SO2 AMINE PURIFICATION UNIT
Na2SO4 Purge
SO2 Absorber
SO2 Regenerator Feed Gas Prescrubber and Cooler
Rich Amine
Cond. Steam
M/U Water Purge Water October, 2010
22
CANSOLV INTEGRATED SO2 AND CO2 SCRUBBING SYSTEM To Stack CO Regenerator 2
CO2 Product
CO2 AMINE PURIFICATION UNIT
Water Wash
CO2 Absorber
Steam Cond.
Caustic Polisher NaOH
SO2 Product SO2 AMINE PURIFICATION UNIT
Na2SO4 Purge
SO2 Absorber
SO2 Regenerator Feed Gas Prescrubber and Cooler
Rich Amine
Steam Cond.
M/U Water Purge Water
October, 2010
23
EXPECTED PERFORMANCE – CO2 AFTER HEAT INTEGRATION
Study Case Specifics Inlet CO2 Concentration CO2 Removal Specific LP Steam Consumption Annual Amine Degradation Particulate load
CO2
SO2/CO2
~12 Vol%
~12% Vol
90%
90%
<1.2 tons/ton CO2
<0.9 tons/ton CO2
<10% of initial fill/year1
<10% of initial fill/year1
<30 mg/Nm3
<30 mg/Nm3
Note 1: represents less than 0.1 kg / ton CO2 October, 2010
24
3.0
MAKING CCS A SUCCESS
October, 2010
25
CHALLENGES IN CO2 CAPTURE
No commercial experience at this scale yet Main (technology) risks CO2 capture efficiency and energy consumption Scale-up Contaminants handling and influence on degradation (oxidation, SO2, particles, etc) -> only applies to coal fired power plant flue gas. Environmental concerns (emissions to air)
October, 2010
26
SCALEUP
No experience in the industry with respect to similar sizes CO2 capture process from flue gas
Main risks: Equipment scale-up Design of counter current equipment
Operability Dynamic performance of plant (responds times, wall effects, heat losses, etc) Influence on Power plant
October, 2010
27
4.0
PROJECT EXECUTION, AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
October, 2010
28
PROJECT EXECUTION IN CCS
Two Approaches OPTION 1: Select ONE technology provider based on preliminary firm EPC price (power industry model)
OPTION 2: Competitive FEED Project design done to 30% level in all disciplines by >2 technology suppliers
October, 2010
29
EXAMPLE: USING THE FIRST APPROACH
North American Power project CCS, 2006 Released RFQ for new-build 450 MW CCS plant RFQ requested firm EPC price without FEED Limited engineering done up-front by technology providers/EPC contractors to derive a price Examined bids submitted, ultimately selected solution based on provided estimates Project terminated in 2007 due to CAPEX escalation (scope creep and technical issues encountered when doing detailed design)
October, 2010
30
EXAMPLE: AN ALTERED APPROACH FOR EXECUTION
SaskPower, 2008 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Kick Off of full CCS Project Opted for a paid Competitive FEED Process (3 bidders)
3 bidders selected based on preliminary estimates (similar information requested by Tenaska at this stage)
Deliverable of competitive FEED was a Firm Turnkey Price for the project
October, 2010
31
RESULTS OF COMPETITIVE FEED
Requirements and trade-offs clearly understood Led to reduced contingency allowances Higher quality estimate for AFE FEED Engineering fed directly into detailed Engineering â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Reducing EPC Construction schedule Actual Lump sum EPC Turnkey price dropped 30% from year earlier estimate. Pre-FEED Parasitic load estimate dropped 30% from year earlier estimate.
October, 2010
32
Q&A
33
OPPORTUNITY CRUDES CONFERENCE 2010 OCTOBER 25-26, 2010 | WESTIN OAKS HOTEL | HOUSTON, TX (USA)
Thank you for participating at this conference! Keep updated for post conference news and conference coverage at: www.OpportunityCrudes.com
We would like to thank the following companies for their support of Opportunity Crudes Conference 2010: