Assessment of Potential for CCS in

the Calabarzon Region in the

Philippines

Raymond R. Tan, Ph.D.

Director, Center for Engineering & Sustainable Development Research

University Fellow and Professor of Chemical Engineering

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

Consulting Team

• Carlo Arcilla, Ph.D. (Local Team Leader)

• Susan Roces, Ph.D. (DLSU Team Leader)

• Raymond Tan, Ph.D. (Decision Analyst)

• Michael Promentilla, Ph.D. (Decision Analyst)

• Nathaniel Dugos, Ph.D. (Process Analyst)

• Pag-asa Gaspillo, Ph.D. (Process Analyst)

• Alyanna Uy (Research Assistant)

Outline of Presentation

• Overview of Philippine CO2 Emission Statistics

• Geographic Scope of Study (Calabarzon)

• Major CO2 Sources in Calabarzon

• Criteria

• Screening and Ranking of CO2 Sources

• Evaluation of Potential CO2 Storage Sites

• Social Acceptability Issues

• Status and Further Work

Philippine Primary Energy Mix in Mtoe/y(Source: DOE, 2009)

Despite the relatively

large share of

renewable and non-

conventional energy,

fossil fuels still comprise

more than half of the

primary energy demand

of about 40 Mtoe/y

Coal, 6.1

Oil, 13.5

Natural Gas, 3.2

Others, 16.8

Philippine CO2 Emissions in Mt/y by Sector(Source: DOE, 2009)

Industry, 11.7

Transport, 24.5

Power generation, 27.5

Others, 4.8 Industry and power

generation account for

more than half of the 70

Mt/y energy-based CO2

emissions

Philippine Power Mix in GWh/y(Source: DOE, 2009)

Oil5,381

Hydroelectricity9,788

Geothermal10,324

Coal16,476

Wind and Solar79

Natural Gas19,887

Natural gas and coal are

the largest contributors

to the Philippine power

mix. Annual generation

is about 60 GWh.

Geographic Scope of Study(Source: Wikipedia, 2010)

Calabarzon (Region IV-A)

consists of provinces

immediately to the south or

east of the National Capital

Region.

This region accounts for a

disproportionately large

share of total Philippine CO2

emissions.

Hierarchical Decision Criteria

Hard requisites or “musts”

• Remaining service life

• Capacity utilization factor

factor

Soft requisites or “wants”

• CO2 stream concentration

• CO2 stream volume

• Stream impurity levels

(NOx, SO2, PM)

• Space availability and

local geography

• Proximity to storage sites

• Declared interest in CCS

Major CO2 Sources in Calabarzon

Source Estimated CO2 Flowrate(Mt/y)

Notes

Coal Plant 1 3.80

Estimated from publicly reported rated capacities and typical CO2 emission factors

Coal Plant 2 1.60

Coal Plant 3 3.44

NG Plant 1 2.86

NG Plant 2 1.38

NG Plant 3 3.23

Refinery 0.38

Offshore NG Platform

0.17

Cement Plants 1 - 4

1.35 Estimated from publicly reported production volume and capacity utilization

TOTAL 18.21

Screening of CO2 Sources in Calabarzon

Source Remaining Life (>20 y)

Capacity Utilization (>80%)

Coal Plant 1 Yes Yes

Coal Plant 2 No No

Coal Plant 3 Yes Yes

NG Plant 1 Yes Yes

NG Plant 2 Yes Yes

NG Plant 3 Yes Yes

Refinery Yes Yes

Offshore NG Platform Yes Yes

Cement Plants 1 - 4 No data No data*

*Cement industry average capacity utilization in 2009 is reported by CeMAP to be 54%

Assessment of CO2 Sources in CalabarzonCriterion Coal

Plant 1Coal

Plant 3NG

Plant 1NG

Plant 2NG

Plant 3NG

PlatformRefinery

Stream CO2 concentration 9 10 1 1 1 1 5

CO2 flowrate 10 10 10 6 10 0 0

Stream SO2 concentration 0 5 10 10 10 10 0

Stream O2 concentration 8 9 0 0 0 0 1

Stream NOx concentration 0 6 9 9 10 0 0

Particulates content 0 0 10 10 10 10 0

Trace pollutants content 0 0 10 10 10 10 0

Implementation date 4 6 6 7 7 7 4

Distance from storage site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Existing infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Space availability 10 10 0 0 10 0 10

Plant efficiency 0 0 5 5 5 0 0

Proximity to water supply 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Company willingness to implement CCS

0 5 0 0 5 5 5

TOTAL 4 6 9 8 10 3 2

Results of CO2 Source Assessment

• Coal Plant 2 has been eliminated from further

consideration due to age

• Full analysis of four cement plant will not be done until

acquisition of site-specific data

• Three natural-gas fired combined cycle plants are

promising candidates due to their age and large size

• Coal Plant 3 is also a promising candidate as it is

relatively new compared to the others

Philippine Geology : Initial Storage Assessment

Dr. Carlo A. ArcillaProfessor and DirectorNational Institute of Geological SciencesUniversity of the Philippines

Dr. Chelo PascuaAssistant ProfessorNational Institute of Geological SciencesUniversity of the Philippines

Determining the Potential for Carbon Capture and

Storage in Southeast Asia [RETA 7575]

Complex tectonics of the Philippines

• Diffuse plate boundary (unclear as to what plate it belongs)

• Amalgamation of continental materials, ocean floor (ophiolites), younger volcanics, and immature basins

• Currently traversed by left-lateral Philippine fault

• 20 active volcanoes, 200 dormant

• Sedimentary basins formed due to complex tectonics, are max. 25 Million years old

FAULTS & TRENCHES

SEDIMENTARY & OCEANIC BASINS

OPHIOLITES AND GEOTHERMAL SITES

GEOTHERMAL SITES WITH ACTIVITIES

SEDIMENTARY BASINS

OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. Cagayan Basin2. Central Luzon Basin3. Ilocos Trough4. West Luzon Platform5. Bicol Shelf/Lamon Bay6. Southeast Luzon Basin7. Iloilo Basin8. Visayan and Samar Basin9. Agusan-Davao Basiin10. Cotabato Basin11. Sulu Sea Basin12. South Palawan Basin13. North Palawan-Mindoro Basin

Basin Name Area

(km2)

Wildcat wells

drill

Total Resources

Discovered Undiscovered % Gas

Ilocos 19,500 1 - 19 100%

Cagayan 24,000 30 0.4 396 99%

West Luzon 16,000 none - 23 100%

Central Luzon 16,500 17 - 902 100%

Bicol 32,500 6 - 44 100%

Mindoro-Cuyo 58,000 15 25 806 7%

W. Masbate-Iloilo 25,000 10 - 5 72%

SE Luzon 66,000 26 - 301 36%

Visayan 46,500 143 0.5 1,259 28%

Reed Bank 71,000 4 - 440 92%

NW Palawan 36,000 58 942 1,376 72% (13%-C)

SW Palawan 44,000 23 - 1,355 60%

East Palawan 92,000 4 - 443 28%

Sulu Sea 115,000 17 - 203 36%

Cotabato 14,000 10 5 152 45%

Agusan-Davao 33,000 3 - 196 70%

Sedimentary Basins of the Philippines

Basin

Name

Area

Covered

(km2)

Thickness of

Sedimentary

Fill (km)

Estimated

Basin

Volume

(km3)

Percentage

Permeable

Units

(lithology

based)

Ave. Porosity

of Permeable

Units

(%)

(include range)

Basin

Pressure

Range

Basin

Temp.

Range

Ave.

Geothermal

Gradient

(C/100 m)

Cagayan 28,000 ~9

Central Luzon 16,000 >9 1.9

Ilocos 15,000 ~8

West Luzon 12,500 ~9

Bicol

Shelf/Lamon

Bay

34,000 ~3

Southeast

Luzon

40,000 3.5-8

(onshore)

~7.5

(offshore)

4.01-3.29

LUZON

Data under collection

CAGAYAN

*well location, CCOP-DOE, Aug 2002

CENTRAL LUZON

*well location, CCOP-DOE, Aug 2002

Possible CCS options in the Philippines

GENERAL:

Saline aquifers (work in progress) Depleted oil and gas fields (need past production data and reserves)

NOVEL: Geothermal systems (commercial partner for technology assessment) Mineral trapping in ophiolite sequences (access via fractures) Mineral carbonation i.e. calcite, magnesite Laterite carbonation i.e. siderite

Direct sequestration from atmospheric CO2

Hyperalkaline springs i.e. tufa deposits

Engineered systems similar to these natural CCS mechanisms

Additional Social Acceptability Issues

• Public awareness of CCS as a low-carbon option in the

Philippines remains low

• Added cost of power resulting from CCS energy

penalties have been raised as a major cause for concern

in previous public discussions held at DOE

• Grid-wide losses due to CCS energy penalties will need

to be compensated for by new plants

Status and Further Work

• Data verification

• Filling of data gaps

• Performing sensitivity analysis on decision matrix

• Techno-economic analysis for identified CO2 sources

• Qualitative analysis of other decision criteria

• Integrated analysis of CO2 source and sink matches

Thank you for your attention

Questions and comments are welcome

Or contact us via e-mail:

Dr. Carlo Arcilla (caloy.arcilla@gmail.com)

Dr. Susan Roces (susan.roces@dlsu.edu.ph)