Identifying and Developing European CCS Hubs

Issue 1: April 2016

Key messages
A low carbon EU should be inclusive with a comprehensive collection network enabling
emitters large and small to connect to CO2 storage and create value in the Net Zero
economy.

Developing such CO2 gathering networks & clusters linked to CO2 storage hubs via trunk
pipeline networks and shipping routes is the lowest cost route to creating low carbon
sustainable growth.

The EU has a number of large CO2 emission clusters, plus it benefits from world class
CO2 storage formations. Connecting emissions clusters to the storage formations will
often cross national boundaries – a regional collaborative approach incorporating
adjacent member states is therefore needed.

A necessity for the creation of hubs and clusters, is policy supported by suitable
(financial) instruments that can facilitate deployment. However, an often overlooked fact
is that, in addition to policy instruments, the maturation of hubs and clusters requires
dedicated people to tailor and plan deployment. Only with both dedicated people and
policies can CCS be deployed to accelerate the transformation to Net Zero industrial and
power generation clusters.

Efficient and effective design and delivery of optimal hubs and clusters requires regional
development organisations, each drawn from relevant Member States, working with
national market makers and transport & storage network developers.

Scope and limitations of this report

ZEP was requested, by the EU Commission, to enlarge on the potential core areas for
near-term European CCS deployment that had been identified in their earlier report An
Executable Plan for enabling CCS in Europe. This short note expands on the contribution
toward Net Zero and a sustainable Europe that deployment of CCS hubs and clusters can
deliver.

In creating this report it was found that only limited data could be obtained for some of
the regions that have been identified as geographically advantaged.

Upon investigation it was noted that only those regions which had developed local
delivery organisations were in a position to deliver the bottom-up analyses required to
underpin informed investment decisions in CO2 infrastructure. It was also found that
many of these organisations are at risk as they depend on local or short term funding –
yet the development of hubs and clusters requires a multi-decade approach to pan
European development similar to the approach adopted in the Connecting Europe
Facility.

Owing to the lack of data it has only been possible to outline some regions and this
document is therefore being issued with the expectation of revision should more
information become available.
CCS can deliver rapid large scale reductions in CO2 emissions
The COP21 agreement from Paris in 2015 has made it abundantly clear that CO2 has to
be collected and disposed of, not just released into the environment.

The only large scale permanent

disposal route for CO2 is to re-
inject it into deep rock
formations. This disposal route
is proven: in Europe the
Norwegian company Statoil has
almost 20 years of CO2 storage
experience; in the USA large
scale injection for CO2 EOR
started in the 80s; while the
technology applied has many
elements in common to those
used in the production and
storage of oil and gas.

CCS has the ability to deliver to

EU Member States the rapid reductions in CO2 emissions required to support INDCs
while, at the same time, having minimal impact on current infrastructure. A capture
equipped energy, waste incineration or manufacturing plant has only a slightly larger
footprint than the original plant, while CO2 transport pipelines, like natural gas, chemical
and oil product pipelines, are buried. The CCS system fits comfortably alongside existing
power generation, power transport and manufacturing infrastructure, and unobtrusively
delivers huge multi-million tonne reductions in CO2 emissions.

Why emissions clusters and storage hubs?

Storage requires suitable geological strata, but these do not exist under every EU region
therefore CO2 transport is required. This is analogous to natural gas transportation
where pipelines cross the continent linking gas fields to customers.

The transport and injection of CO2, like that of natural

gas, benefits from economies of scale – it is more cost
effective to build one large trunk pipeline than to build
three smaller pipelines. The same holds for injection
infrastructure and aquifer storage monitoring

2 |Page
technology. A schematic representation is depicted on the right1.

Large emission sources also tend to be clustered – because they often historically grew
near coal fields, ports or rivers; and because there are benefits to clustering
manufacturing near to refining and power generation.

This leads logically to the development of CO2 collection clusters, trunk transmission
networks, and CO2 storage hubs. Once established a hub and cluster network can
significantly reduce the cost of entry to new decarbonised companies.

Industrial clusters represent a real opportunity to exploit shared infrastructure that many
parties can use, therefore benefiting and reducing cost for multiple (and especially
smaller) emitters. Strategically sized transport & storage infrastructure built with
additional/spare capacity allows the investment decision to be de-risked for the emitter,
allowing for potentially more attractive capital structures and funding approaches, which
would reduce risk and cost for many potential low carbon projects. Shared infrastructure
with sufficient, proved storage capacity also allows emitters to separate their investment
decisions (in terms of both time and technology) from the development of the network.
This is important to maximise deployment and exploitation of CCS and realise benefits of
scale2.

Europe’s advantaged global position

The EU is lucky to have a world class storage region – the North Sea basin. This basin
has many tens of billions of tonnes (Gt) of CO2 storage capacity and has the advantage
of being offshore thereby reducing the public acceptance barrier. Offshore development,
however, has a higher capital cost than onshore and benefits even more from the cost
savings delivered by economies of scale. The Baltic Sea has also been recently evaluated
and significant storage resources in the multi-Gt range have been identified.

Onshore CO2 storage will also be important and is already proven in Canada and in the
USA. Recent experience in the EU indicates that public acceptance is more challenging to
obtain than in the USA and Canada, due substantially to population concentration and
location, therefore it is likely that offshore storage will precede onshore storage. There
might, however, be exceptions to this especially in Eastern Europe where there is an
existing onshore CO2 EOR industry.

Many of Europe’s largest carbon emitters (both power plants and industrial facilities) are
already ‘clustered’ together around major ports such as Rotterdam, Duisburg, Hamburg,
Humberside, Teesside, Grangemouth, Antwerp, Le Havre and Merseyside.

Importantly, some industrial clusters are also close to excellent and extensive geological
CO2 storage opportunities. For example on the North Sea coast of the UK, the Teesside

1
Reference: A CCS future for Europe: catalysing North Sea action. SCCS 2014. Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage.
http://www.sccs.org.uk/images/expertise/reports/catalysing/downloads/SCCSConference2014Report.pdf
2
Global CCS Institute 2015, The Global Status of CCS: 2015. Special Report: The Role of CCS Hubs and Clusters in Europe,
Melbourne, Australia.

3 |Page
area’s industry represents 5.6 per cent of the UK’s industrial emissions, while the
Yorkshire and Humber region represents 10 percent of total UK CO2 emissions.3,4

EU Emissions clusters, from (left) IEAGHG5 and (right) ZEP6 Carbon Capture and Storage
in Energy-intensive Industries

3
The UK’s first industrial CCS cluster - introducing the Teesside Collective. Global CCS
Institute Insight.Available at: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/
WebinarOrganiser/2015/04/24/uk%E2%80%99s-first-industrial-ccs-cluster-%E2%80%93-
introducing-teesside-collective?author=MTc1OTM%3D [Accessed 16 September 2015 with thanks to the
GCCSI].
4
UK local authority and regional carbon dioxide emissions national statistics.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-local-authority-and-regionalcarbon-
dioxide-emissions-national-statistics [Accessed 10 September 2015 with thanks to the GCCSI]
5
IEAGHG report 2005/2. Building the cost curves for CO2 storage: European sector
http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/95736/building-cost-curves-co2-storage-european-sector.pdf
6
ZEP. CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) in energy-intensive industries
http://www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/library/publication/222-ccsotherind.html

4 |Page
How are hubs and clusters encouraged to develop?
The challenge with CCS is scale. Full scale CCS projects can make a massive impact on
the CO2 emission reductions targets of a member state – a single commercial scale
project will remove between 1Mtpa and 5Mtpa. For reference 1Mtpa is equivalent to
removing the emissions of about 250,000 EU cars. However, the large scale of a CCS
project – which delivers a large emission reduction – means that the individual project
capital cost is significant, commonly over €1Bln. In order to fund this level of
investment, finance is generally sought over a period of up to 25 years – this exposes
projects to significant counterparty risk as described in ZEP’s T&S business model report,
and also to political/policy risk. While the renewable industry, which also faces the need
for significant capital investment, has overcome this challenge through the use of policy
led stimuli like subsidy, feed in tariffs and loan guarantees this bridge has not evolved
yet for CCS industry.

CCS is an emissions control technology, in order avoid damages and resulting cost to the
environment and society. This helps explain why CCS has not managed to develop an
effective funding model as it is an adjunct to existing processes (coal/gas power
generation + capture; manufacturing + capture) rather than an industry in its own right
(wind generation, solar generation). Another challenge is that transport infrastructure
needs to be developed to link CO2 emitters to CO2 storage sites from scratch. By contrast
renewable generation benefits from the Member State transmission grids. The capital
risk for grid upgrades can often be borne by regulated utilities not by an individual
renewable energy project. For this reason ZEP is recommending the disaggregation of
the CCS chain – the separation of capture from transport and storage infrastructure
development.

This separation requires the development of key transport infrastructure, sized correctly
for regional requirements. Some of the infrastructure can take advantage of the
flexibility of ship transport – requiring the provision of liquefaction, loading and
offloading facilities rather than whole pipeline systems. It also requires the development
of strategic storage hubs.

In order for a region to be ready for the development of CCS a number of critical success
factors need to be in place. These are described in full in ZEP’s Executable Plan, but the
key ones that are being selected here in order to identify potential hubs and clusters are:

(1) Ambition to decarbonise industry and energy

(2) The presence of emissions sources and storage formations
(3) A politically supportive industrial region and member state
(4) The potential for EU regional funding
(5) The potential for economic value creation and retention through the development
of CO2 advantaged manufacturing of products or CO2 utilisation opportunities.

5 |Page
A necessity for the creation of hubs and clusters is a policy supported by suitable
(financial) instruments that can facilitate such development. Effective delivery requires
coordination by regional development organisations, each drawn from relevant Member
States, working with national
market makers and T&S network
developers.

In the absence of regional

development organisations ZEP has
drawn upon the knowledge of its
members to create outline
development plans for a number of
candidate regions. The fact that the
level of detail of the summary plans
varies highlights the need for the
key first step of stimulating the
creation of these regional
organisations. Thanks must be given
to those organisations that do exist
and who have helped: Gassnova;
Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage
(SCCS); the CCSA; the Rotterdam
Climate Initiative and the GCCSI.

The figure to the right shows the

candidate regions that have been identified as possessing many of the key
characteristics: CO2 sources, sinks, and political awareness of the opportunity presented
by CCS.

Potential regional groupings of emissions clusters and hubs

The lack of identified regional development organisations or proxies thereof in Poland,
Germany, Romania and Spain/Portugal means that ZEP has to date been unable to
mature notional CCS development options for these key regions.

A critical recommendation is therefore to request that the Commission work

with these regions to establish organisations that can effectively outline the
opportunities for rapid and deep carbon reduction by CCS.

The figure to the right outlines a potential integrated

development opportunity for the countries that skirt
the North Sea. It is possible to start small with
demonstration scale projects (1-3 Mtpa), then
develop initial commercial scale cross border
connections, and finally install the full scale (mature)
interconnection trunk lines. Ship transport is ever
present connecting smaller sources to the established
storage hubs, initially transporting CO2 between
onshore hubs until offshore unloading has been
developed.

The four initial components are: Rotterdam hub; the

UK Southern North Sea hub; the UK Scottish hub;
and the Scandinavia hub. These regions would also
benefit from formal regional development
organisations.

6 |Page
The nature of a regional development organisation

A regional development organisation is envisaged by ZEP as a small body with

established full time staff.

 The staff would be drawn from the member states represented in the regional
organisation and would have strong links back to the relevant ministries.

 Staff competence would cover capture, power and industry, transport, geological
storage, public engagement, economics, energy system modelling, business &
finance, R&D, climate science, regulatory and policy.

 The mandate would be to

o Map and understand the nature and longevity of emission sources –
working closely with companies and local stakeholders
o Develop policy recommendations that would lead to the capture of these
emission sources, and use these data to create forecasts of captured CO2,
while also ensuring that these forecasts are linked to the INDCs and
incorporated in system modelling tools such as the UK ESME model7.
o Identify potential CO2 stores (EOR, depleted field, and saline formation)
and develop maturation plans
o Identify transport corridors and perform initial impact assessments
o Develop the best local business models (point-to-point, market maker) for
delivery of CO2 capture, transport and storage within the region
o Work together with regional and EU policy makers to deliver the CO2
emission reduction potential of CCS – building this into the (I)NDCs.

A coordination mechanism between regional organisations will be important and could

potentially leverage the already existing EU (EEPR) projects network, or could be
facilitated by an ETIP such as ZEP.

7
http://www.eti.co.uk/project/esme/

7 |Page
Descriptions of some of the potential hubs and clusters
As mentioned in the earlier sections not all key regions can be described owing to a lack
of integrated data. The following sections outline the hubs and clusters for which some
data exists.

The Rotterdam CO2 hub

The port of Rotterdam industrial complex emitted about 30Mt CO2 in 20148. It is by far
the largest port in the EU, and is also located near to the second largest port Antwerp.
The port is the terminus of existing pipeline corridors to Antwerp, and the Rhein and
Ruhr industrialised regions, and naturally is well suited to CO2 ship and barge transport.

The region pioneered the use of waste CO2 with the development of OCAP9 in 2003. They
are host to the ROAD10 CCS project which is in receipt of EEPR11 funding.

The ROAD project has identified a cluster of depleted gas fields, the Rijn oil field and a
saline aquifer all operated by TAQA. The fields represent the low cost kick start for CCS
in Europe, and one field is already in receipt of the first ever EU storage permit.

The map to the right indicates sources

and potential pipeline and ship
transport routes.

There is an opportunity to extend the

Rotterdam hub into a regional “Target
Zero emission” cluster. The current
team is composed of part time
members from some of the
stakeholder companies in the port.

The team has identified a number of

Projects of Common Interest that can
either increase the capacity of flow by
building infrastructure that crosses a
border or increase the capacity of flow
as a result of construction in a single country. Eligible projects could be:

8
ECN have generated a forecast of the CO 2 emissions out to 2030; http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2013/e13019.pdf
9
Organic Carbon dioxide for Assimilation of Plants
10
Rotterdam Opslag en Afvang Demonstratieproject
11
European Energy Programme for Recovery

8 |Page
  A pipeline between Antwerp and Rotterdam
 A pipeline between Duisburg and Rotterdam
 A CO2 gathering system in Antwerp, Duisburg, Le Havre, Hamburg or Rotterdam
 Buffer storage and loading/unloading facilities at Antwerp, Duisburg, Le Havre,
Hamburg or Rotterdam
 A pipeline network to the first few offshore storage locations, (excluding injection
infrastructure on platforms, which is not eligible).

At present the whole potential for a carbon capture hub hinges on the success of the
ROAD project. The development of a multi-country regional deployment organisation
here could greatly improve the potential to deliver rapid and deep CO2 emission cuts in
at least three member states.

UK hubs
Until recently a lot of work has been done in the UK in trying to develop up to two
potential end-to-end CCS projects. These projects could have stimulated the
development of CCS hubs in the North and the South of the UK – and such follow on
projects like the Teeside Collective industrial cluster were in development.

The project funding was removed by the member state at the end of 2015, however, the
study work did serve to outline that there was potential to create effective hubs and
clusters in this region.

The work is presented on the following pages, with the caveat there is a significant risk
that the UK potential will be lost if an effective regional development organisation is not
established that can continue the work done by the two now disbanded major projects.

9 |Page
UK Southern North Sea CCS hub

There is significant potential to

develop a CCS hub in the
Southern North Sea (SNS)
based around the ‘Endurance’12
storage site, which lies within
the Bunter sandstone formation
in the UK Continental Shelf.

The Endurance store has

recently been appraised for use
with the UK White Rose CCS
project. As such it has de-
risked the Bunter as a storage
formation. The wider Bunter
Sandstone could offer CO2
storage opportunities in excess of 3 Gt CO213.

The SNS hub offers CCS opportunities for a range of regions with substantial CO 2
emissions, including both the Teesside and Yorkshire-Humber regions. The potential also
exists to transport CO2 from continental Europe, including from the Rotterdam region, by
either pipeline or ship.

Southern UK emissions sources (2013)14 are

shown on the right. The Yorkshire-Humber and
Teesside regions combined emit more than 70
MtCO2 per year, equivalent to 15% of total UK
industrial emissions.

Industrial emissions from Yorkshire-Humber alone

are estimated at more than 50 Mt per annum
from a region that employed more than 280,000
people in manufacturing industries in 201415. In
addition, the Tees Valley Process Industry Cluster
is one of the largest in the UK, covering a diverse
sector base of chemicals, petrochemicals, steel
and energy companies. The cluster employs c.
20,000 people, has a GDP of c. £10bn and exports
of c. £4bn per annum16.

12
Previously known as 5/42
13
Bentham M, Mallows T, Lowndes J, Green A (2014) CO 2 Storage Evaluation Database (CO 2 Stored). The UK’s online
storage atlas. Energy procedia, 63, 5103–5113.
14
Crown Estate
15
Industrial regions and climate change policies: Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Report (TUC, 2015)
16
A blueprint for industrial CCS (Teesside Collective, 2015)

10 | P a g e
The Teesside Collective – an example of a nascent regional development
organisation
In recent years local stakeholders have joined forces in the Teesside area of Northern
England (see map on previous page) in the UK. The formation of the group was spurred
on by the UK CCS commercialisation efforts, but then was underpinned by some limited
UK regional funding. This has allowed the stakeholders to form a team and map and
understand the individual emission sources – see below17.

What is interesting about this project is that, like in the Rotterdam area, they have
managed to bring multiple emitters together to create a decarbonisation and sustainable
industrial vision. What this group lacks at present is a store as storage depended on the
UK Scottish or UK Southern stores in the now defunct CCS commercialisation process.

Teesside illustrates the potential that can be delivered by a local organisation. If this
were expanded into a regional organisation (including the Southern UK and potentially
the Scotland region as well) then larger power emitters could be included as could
storage.

There is also potential for integration with shipping and the later construction of
interconnectors crossing the North Sea joining, for example, the Rotterdam cluster to the
UK cluster.

17
Sarah Tennison (Tees Valley Unlimited) - Teesside Collective: Current Progress on the Industrial CCS Project in Teesside -
UKCCSRC Cranfield Biannual 21-22 April 2015

11 | P a g e
UK Scottish hub
The UK’s main oil province lies in the Central
and Northern North Sea off the coast of
Scotland. Fifty years of exploration and
production mean that the area has well
understood and appraised geology, depleted
fields and existing infrastructure. The figure to
the right shows the oil and gas fields plus the
identified saline formations.

The CO2 storage potential is huge with an

estimated 54 Gt CO218 of capacity: several
decades-worth of potential storage
requirement for the whole of the EU.

The majority of Scotland’s industrial point-

source CO2 emissions (77%, 7.6 Mt in 2014)19 are located around the Firth of Forth,
particularly in the Grangemouth area. This area is linked to a gas trunk line that has
already been assessed20 for conversion to CO2. This line links the industrial heartland to
the St Fergus beachhead of the Goldeneye gas line which joins to the fully appraised
Goldeneye21 potential CO2 store.

Although Scottish emissions are modest, the area benefits from the Peterhead deep-
water port that is very near the St Fergus pipeline beachhead. The port has been
identified as suitable for ship borne CO2 reception. As such the region is a good match to
proposals for CO2 collection networks in northern Europe and an export hub at
Rotterdam.22 This would allow early
expansion, project-by-project, of the first
pilot and commercial scale CCS
developments in the North Sea Region
through access to well-characterised, large
capacity storage sites with relatively low
capital investment. In turn, in the longer
term, when larger CO2 transport volumes
become established, new trunk pipelines
could sequentially replace shipping routes.

An attraction for the region is the

opportunity for CO2 EOR23. Offshore CO2
EOR has the potential to create economic value, extend the productive life of oilfields
(e.g. up to fifteen years) with a range of benefits including additional domestic oil
revenues, delayed decommissioning, and job retention, as well as providing long-term

18
CO2 STORage Evaluation Database (CO2 Stored). The UK's online storage atlas. Bentham, M., Mallows, T., Lowndes, J.,
and Green, A. Energy Procedia, 2014, 63: 5103-5113.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610214023558?np=y
19
Reducing costs of CCS by shared reuse of existing pipeline – case study of a CO2 capture cluster for industry and power in
Scotland. Brownsort, PA., Scott, V., Haszeldine, RS. Article submitted for publication in International Journal for Greenhous e
Gas Control, 2016.
20
Assessed as part of the UK Longannet CCS project
21
Assessed as part of the Peterhead CCS project
22
Overall Supply Chain Optimization. CO2 Liquid Logistics Shipping Concept. Vermeulen, T. N., 2011. Tebodin Netherlands
BV, Vopak, Anthony Veder and GCCSI. Report number: 3112001. http://decarboni.se/sites/default/files/publications/19011/co2-
liquid-logistics-shipping-concept-llsc-overall-supply-chain-optimization.pdf
23
http://erpuk.org/project/co2-eor/

12 | P a g e
CO2 storage. Potential EOR candidate fields are illustrated in the figure above24. The
combination of geological storage with CO2 EOR has the potential to contribute to the
expansion of CO2 storage at low cost. However uncertainty remains in the EOR
performance of the fields and significant expenditure is required to retrofit offshore
facilities.

24
Reference: CO2 storage and EOR in the North Sea: Securing a low-carbon future for the UK. SCCS, 2015. Scottish Carbon
Capture & Storage. http://www.sccs.org.uk/images/expertise/reports/co2-eor-jip/SCCS-CO2-EOR-JIP-Report-SUMMARY.pdf

13 | P a g e
Scandinavia Hub
Driven by the development of a Norwegian Industrial CCS Cluster in Southern Norway,
this hub is currently being matured through a Norwegian government initiative. Three
industrial facilities (cement, fertiliser &
waste incineration) are considered for CO2
capture, amounting to between 0.5 and 1.5
million tonnes of CO2 annually. Initial
transportation will be by ship to a
geological storage facility in the North Sea.

Several concepts on three large potential

storage sites are to be evaluated in order to
bring forward a transport and storage
solution to FID within the next couple of
years. This initiative – based on a broad
Source: Nordiccs, 2015
agreement in the Norwegian parliament –
aims at implementation of a full-scale CCS
value chain from 2020 for a duration of up
to 25 years. The initial CO2 volumes injected are expected to characterise and prove
geological storage availability for much greater future volumes of CO2 shipped (and later
piped) from other Scandinavian sources, including:
Source: Nordiccs, 2015
Northern Denmark (Aalborg area): up to
7 Mtpa (Europe’s most efficient coal-fired
power plant and the largest cement works in
Northern Europe)

Western Sweden (Gotenborg area): ca

5 Mtpa (power plant and refinery)

An option for the Scandinavian Hub would

be to open up for storage of CO2 from the
Baltic region (Luleå, Poland, etc) in North Sea geological storage hubs(s). Once basic
infrastructure is in place and magnitude and security of supply of CO2 is established CO2
can also be made available for use in CO2 EOR combined with geological storage.

The storage potential in the Baltic region is unevenly distributed: Denmark, Poland,
Germany and Lithuania have considerable storage potential onshore as well as offshore,
the limiting factor being regulations and public perception. Finland has no geological
storage potential at all, while Sweden
Source: Nordiccs, 2015 has minor potential in the very south.
Estonia has suitable geology, but too
shallow for storage while Latvia has
some deeper lying geology with few
storage sites identified. This scarceness
of suitable geology could be alleviated
by early storage of Baltic CO2 in North
Sea storage sites, using ship
transportation until local storage
options can be developed.

14 | P a g e
Timing and development path for CCS to contribute to Net Zero
Experience in attempting to develop full chain CCS projects in the UK and the
Netherlands has clearly shown that because of the different business cycles in capture,
transport and storage, the counter party risk is such that separation of transport and
storage into a utility-like business is not only sensible but a necessity. This is expanded
on in the ZEP report on Transport and Storage business models and the recent report
from the UK Crown Estate25.

Before developing capture projects it is necessary to have a firm guarantee that

transport and storage will be available and a clear understanding of the cost. While
appraisal can take significant time, over the last decade, a number of EU regions have
already invested in early appraisal of CO2 storage. Significant EU funding has also been
deployed in exploring the topology of CO2 capture, transport and storage networks26.
Studies, combined with pilot and demonstration projects around the world, have shown
that significant decarbonisation is feasible in industry and power.

The regions that have invested in early appraisal share common characteristics:

 they have all identified the strategic opportunity presented by CCS in delivering
deep decarbonisation at lowest cost and least disruption to society;
 they have leveraged EU and other sources of funding;
 they have developed or retained organisations that can deploy the relevant
competence to inform logical decisions in an impartial manner;
 they have started to develop policies and the financial frameworks that will
enable CCS.

Although ZEP would like to see the development and capitalisation of regional Market
Makers and construction of storage hubs immediately it appears that the interim step of
creating regional development organisations is required. ZEP therefore recommends that
the following (initial) organisations be established:
 Nordics – role already potentially filled by Gassnova?
 Central and Northern North Sea - UK
 Baltics
 Eastern Europe onshore
 Iberian peninsula
 Southern North Sea – will encompass industrial regions of
Rhine/Ruhr/Rotterdam/Antwerp/Le Havre

These organisations need to be established as soon as politically possible. They will then
be able to draw upon the knowledge created by over a decade of EU projects, and local
research, to: (i) build the business cases for inward investment, (ii) create the structures
required for the establishment of Market Makers and Hubs, (iii) inform the development
of focussed capture policies. This will allow regions and Member States to realise the
potential for CCS in INDCs by the 2020s and meet the 1.5°C aspiration longer term.

25
A need unsatisfied: Blueprint for enabling investment in CO2 storage
26
Examples include CO2Europipe; The evolution of the extent and the investment requirements of a trans-European CO2
transport network; ZEP report CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) in energy-intensive industries; ZEP report Building a CO2
transport infrastructure for Europe

15 | P a g e
Annex I: Glossary

Capex Capital Expenditure

CCS CO2 Capture and Storage

CCS Directive on the geological storage of CO2
Directive
CfD Contract for Difference

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

DECOM Decomissioning
E&A Exploration & Appraisal
EC European Commission
EEPR European Energy Programme for Recovery
EIB European Investment Bank
EMR Electricity Market Reform
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
ETIP European Technology and Innovation Platform
ETS Emissions Trading Scheme
EU European Union
EUA Emission Unit Allowance
Feasex Feasibility Expenditure

FID Final Investment Decision

FiT Feed-in Tariff

FEED Front End Engineering Design

16 | P a g e
Mt Mega (million) tonnes
MS Member State

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

O&M Operation and Maintenance

Opex Operational Expenditure

TPA Third Party Access

UK United Kingdom
ZEP Zero Emissions Platform

17 | P a g e
18 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
Annex II: Members of ZEP’s Temporary Taskforce CO2
Transport and Storage

Name Country Organisation

Shabana Ahmad UK The Crown Estate

Tim Bertels The Netherlands Shell
Peter Brownsort UK SCCS
Niels Peter Christensen Norway Gassnova
Benjamin Court Belgium GCCSI
Lamberto Eldering Norway Statoil
Chris Gittins The Netherlands TAQA
Jonas Halseth Belgium Bellona Europe
Gardiner Hill BP BP
Chris Littlecott UK E3G
Philippa Parminter UK SCCS
Andy Read The Netherlands ROAD2020
Adam Richards UK National Grid
Owain Tucker* UK Shell
Keith Whiriskey* Belgium Bellona Europa

* Co-chairs

This document has been prepared on behalf of the Advisory Council of the European Technology
Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants. The information and views contained in this
document are the collective view of the Advisory Council and not of individual members, or of the
European Commission. Neither the Advisory Council, the European Commission, nor any person
acting on their behalf, is responsible for the use that might be made of the information contained
in this publication.

20 | P a g e