Gary J. Pendergrass, PE, RGMid-America Environmental Compliance ConferenceApril 3, 2014 | Overland Park, KS

Carbon Capture & SequestrationFeasibility Report

Climate Action Plan

• The President’s Climate Action Plan calls for all new coal-fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs) to capture and sequester carbon, and for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to be reduced to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.

• EPA NSPS will require new coal-fired units to sequester 50% of CO2 emissions.

• Requirements for existing coal-fired units undetermined.

C02 Stationary Sources

How CCS Works

The Carbon Challenge

• Flue gas from pulverized coal power plants generally contains 12 to 18% CO2 by volume.

• The capture component of CCS is under development and may be commercially available within a few years. Capture is a matter of installing and operating process equipment, and can be implemented anywhere.

• The sequestration component of CCS requires specific geologic conditions and can only be implemented at certain locations.

Alstom Chilled Ammonia Process

• The President’s Climate Action Plan calls for all new coal-fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs) to capture and sequester carbon, and for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to be reduced to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.

DOE Regional Partnerships

• DOE has established seven regional partnerships to assess the feasibility of carbon sequestration.

• The regional partnerships are focused primarily on assessing deep geological basins.

DOE Small Scale Injection Projects (< 500K metric tons)

DOE Large Scale Injection Projects (> 1M metric tons)

A National Strategy

• Development of regional carbon sequestration sites with a network of pipelines delivering CO2 from power plant sites.

• Missouri power plant sites would be at the “end of the pipe,” so connection to the regional sites would not occur for some time and would come at great expense.

Shallow Carbon Sequestration Demonstration Project

• City Utilities of Springfield organized a “state-led” project to assess the feasibility of carbon sequestration at individual power plant sites.─ Organized a consortium of

Missouri electric utilities.─ Organized research teams.─ Secured Congressional funding.─ Entered a Cooperative

Agreement with DOE-NETL.─ Managed the project throughout

its five-year term.

Project Organization

─ City Utilities/GeoEngineers

─ Utility Partnerso City Utilities of Springfieldo Ameren Missourio Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.o Kansas City Power & Lighto The Empire District Electric Company

─ Research Partnerso City Utilities of Springfieldo Missouri Department of Natural Resourceso Missouri State Universityo Missouri University of Science & Technology

Project Sites

• Selected four exploratory drilling sites at utility partner power plants which occupied different geological and physiographic settings.─ John Twitty Energy Center─ Thomas Hill Energy Center─ Iatan Generating Station─ Sioux Power Plant

Scope of Work

─ Work at the drilling sites involved:o 3D Seismic Reflection

Surveyso Rotary drilling to the top of

the confining layero Continuous coring of the

confining layer and target formation

o Downhole geophysical logging

o Hydrologic testingo Pressure testingo Plugging & abandonment

State-wide Cross Section of Exploratory Boreholes

Final Report

• A 698-page Final Report has been submitted to DOE-NETL.

• Once approved, we will be free to release the report and findings.

Missouri Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units

• These 18 EGUs provide the vast majority of the energy used by Missouri’s families, farms, and businesses.

• These 18 EGUs collectively produced 77,330 Giga-watt hours (GW-HRS) of generation in calendar year 2012.

• These 18 EGUs are the lifeblood of Missouri’s economy and represent a tremendous investment of time, resources, and infrastructure that is not easily replaced.

Is Carbon Capture & Sequestration Feasible?

• Yes. Carbon capture is technologically feasible but comes at a great capital and operating expense.

• Yes. Carbon sequestration is technologically feasible at certain locations, but also comes at a great capital and operating expense.

• Decisions to implement CCS will be based on economics.─ Cost of replacing current generation vs. cost of maintaining current

generation with CCS.─ Ability to construct new generation.

Questions?

Gary J. Pendergrass, PE, RG

Principal

GeoEngineers, Inc.

3050 S. Delaware Avenue

Springfield, MO 65804

gpendergrass@geoengineers.com

Ph. 417-799-2612