1. Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships “Developing Infrastructure And Validating Carbon Sequestration Technologies” John Litynski Environmental Projects Division Presented at: USDA Symposium on Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry 21-24 February 2005

2. Drivers

3. Renewables 7% 98 Quads Fossil fuels provide 86% of energy 2002 2025 136 Quads By 2020, reliance on fossil fuels remains stable at 87% Coal 23% Nuclear 8% Renewables 6% Oil 39% Gas 24% Coal 23% Nuclear 6% Oil 40% Gas 24% + 40% Source: AEO 2004 Fossil Energy America’s Energy Foundation

4. Speculative GHG Stabilization Scenario to Meet Goals of the Global Climate Change Initiative Gt CO 2 eq / year Business As Usual U.S. emissions stabilization at 2001 level Gap: 5.3 Gt CO 2 / yr NETL/ARI/Energetics 2004

5. Other Potential Drivers  Federal Policy – Senate bills introduced  McCain Lieberman – Mandatory cap and trade  Hagle – Voluntary reduction, tax incentives  State policy – both mandatory and voluntary  Over 25 states drafted and/or passed GHG legislation  NE (RGGI) States and CA most aggressive  1605(b) GHG Voluntary Registry  GHG Exchange Markets  Overseas Markets (Kyoto)  U.S. Voluntary Markets – Chicago Climate Exchange

6. Part of the Solution

7. 200,000 Storage Option Deep Ocean Deep Saline Formations Depleted Oil & Gas Reservoirs Coal Seams Terrestrial Capacity (GtC) Annual World Emissions Storage Options: IEA Technical Review (TR4), March 23, 2004 Carbon Capture & Sequestration Program @MIT World Emissions: DOE/EIA, International Energy Outlook 2003, Table A10 6.5 Gigatons Potential Capacity Range Large Potential Worldwide Storage Capacity

8. Sequestration Enables Stabilization Could Account For > 60% of “Gap” in 2050 DOE/FE/NETL Analysis 2004 Efficiency and Renewables Forestation and Agriculture Non-CO 2 GHGs CO 2 Capture and Storage H 2 w/ sequestration Gt CO 2 eq / year Agriculture Significant Role in 2012 (~30%) Smaller role in 2050 (~3%) Bridge to Technology

9. U.S. DOE/ Fossil Energy Sequestration Program Integration FutureGen Regional Partnerships Infrastructure Break- through Concepts Break- through Concepts Monitoring, Mitigation & Verification Non-CO 2 GHG Mitigation Sequestration Separation & Capture of CO 2 Core R&D International Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

10. Midwest Southeast Illinois Basin Southwest West Coast Plains Big Sky Representing:  244 Organizations  40 States  4 Canadian Provinces  3 Indian Nations  34% cost share Cost Share 34% Partnership$6.9MPartnership$6.9M DOE$13.3M Seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Awarded Sept 2003

11.  Baseline region for sources and sinks  (geologic and terrestrial)  Create action plans for regulatory, liability, environmental, and outreach issues  Establish monitoring and verification protocols  Assess benefits to region  Validating sequestration technology & infrastructure  Phase 1 - design  Phase 2 - testing Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Developing Infrastructure for Wide Scale Deployment These partnerships - 4 to 10 across the country, each made up of private industry, universities, and state and local governments - will become the centerpiece of our sequestration program. They will help us determine the technologies, regulations, and infrastructure that are best suited for specific regions of the country. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham November 21, 2002

12. Two-Phased Approach Phase I (Characterization)  7 Partnerships (40 states)  6 considering terrestrial  24 months (2003-2005) Phase II (Field Validation Tests)  $100 million  4 years (2005-2009)  ~$14.3 million DOE funding / project  Approximately 7 regions Phase III – 2009-2013 ??

13. Big Sky Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Montana State University - Bozeman  Agriculture, rangelands, and forestry  Conducting regional, aggregate analysis in support of policies for GHG reductions  Appropriate MMV technologies  Advanced systems (NIR, LIBS)  Carbon Accounting Frameworks  C-Lock (Expand to WY, MT, and ID)  National Carbon Offset Coalition Source: SDSMT

14. Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Battelle Memorial Institute / Ohio State University  Early deployment options at low cost  No-till  Afforestation  Conversion Grasslands  Wetland Restoration  Biophysical potential of increased C in soils, biomass and litter  MRCSP region represents significant CO 2 offset technical potential  Total Annual C Accumulation: 39.1 MMT  MRCSP region may offset 20% of CO2 emissions in region in Terrestrial Sinks  MRCSP 20 Year C Accumulation: 773 MMT Source: MRCSP

15. Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership Univ. of N.D. – Energy and Environmental Research Center  Focus on two significant regional sinks  Agricultural soils (152 MMTCE)  Wetlands (374 MMTCE)  Agricultural Soils (NDSU)  Conversion to no-till or grass lands  Economic vs. technical potential  Perennial grasses are promising  Glaciated North American Prairie Wetlands  (USGS and Duck Unlimited Canada)  Active sink for 2-3X longer than Ag soils  Long term offset of other GHG emissions  Couple with perennial grasses Source: USGS

16. Southwest Partnership on Carbon Sequestration N.M. Institute of Mining and Technology  Focusing on in Agriculture, Rangelands, and Forests  Terrestrial sequestration in region is naturally limited by low average annual precipitation and the variability in precipitation  Even in systems managed for carbon storage, wet years followed by a series of dry years may result in a net carbon flux from the system.  Requires large scale implementation to reduce risks caused by variability in rainfall

17. West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership California Energy Commission  Afforestation of Suitable Range Lands  9.3 million suitable hectares in CA  Offset up to 12% of current CO 2 emissions in entire region  Forestry  Lengthen rotations of existing stands  Thinning to reduce fire risk matched with bio energy production  Fire is single largest source of CO 2 from Terrestrial  MMV Key technical issue – MMV  Test California Climate Registry accounting protocols Source: Winrock Int

18. Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Southern States Energy Board  Afforestation  Underproductive farm and grazing lands  Bio-energy plantations  Large potential in LMAV  16 M acres bottom land hardwoods available  Existing stand management

19.  Outreach and education mechanisms  Stakeholders – power companies, utilities, NGOs  Public (stakeholder meetings, Public TV, Factsheets)  Carbon Sequestration Atlases  GIS based regional systems & support to NATCARB  Decision support tools  Identify best opportunities  MMV technologies and protocols being identified  satisfy DOE/USDA 1605b voluntary guidelines and State registries  Address permitting guidelines Other Phase I Accomplishments

20. Phase II Goals 1. Perform regional technology validation tests for 2012 technology assessment (15-25 field sites) 2. Refine and implement MMV protocols 3. Continue regional characterization 4. Regulatory compliance activities 5. Implement public outreach and education 6. Identify commercially available sequestration technologies ready for large scale deployment 7. Regional partnerships program integration Not a technology development program!

21. Conclusion  Fossil fuels, especially coal, are plentiful and important to the United States energy security  Terrestrial sequestration can play a significant role in offsetting carbon emissions  Regional partnerships needed to speed acceptance and adoption by emitters and future markets  Fossil fuels, especially coal, are plentiful and important to the United States energy security  Terrestrial sequestration can play a significant role in offsetting carbon emissions  Regional partnerships needed to speed acceptance and adoption by emitters and future markets

22. Visit the NETL Sequestration Website www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/