D3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101075693 This project has received funding from UK Research and Innovation - Innovate UK under Innovation Funding Service (ISF) D3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains Release Status: Final Version Author: Alla Shogenova, Kazbulat Shogenov, Isaline Gravaud, Leandro Sousa, Adam Wójcicki, Ane Elisabet Lothe, Eirik Falck da Silva, Çağlar Sınayuc, Betül Yıldırım, Sevtaç Bülbül, Florian Schmitt, Matthias Honegger, Ingvild Ombudstvedt, Lena Østgaard, Peter Frykman, Laurianne Bouvier, Anastasios Perimenis, Farid Karimi, Ehsan Marzban, Audrey Lopez, Date: 23 January 2025 Filename and version: CCUS-ZEN-D3.3-v3.docx Project ID NUMBER: 101075693 CCUS ZEN - Zero Emission Network to facilitate CCUS uptake in industrial clusters (HORIZON-CL5-2021-D3-02-12) D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 2 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 3 Document History Location This document is stored in the following location: Filename CCUS-ZEN-D3.3-V3.pdf Location Revision History This document has been through the following revisions: Version No. Revision Date Filename/Location stored: Brief Summary of Changes V1 07/01/2025 D3.3-V1 V2 20/01/2025 D3.3-V2 1)“Future Opportunities” are updated to “Opportunities” in SWOT table, 2) all assigned values for external factors are updated to common scale 1-5, 3)Table 4-5 is deleted, tables 4-6 - 4-9 are updated, 4) maximum and total transport distances for B-3 are updated. V3 23/01/2025 CCUS ZEN-D3.3-V3 The number of plants for Med-2 is updated. The EC logo and acknowledgements is deleted from footnote started from page 2. Authorisation This document requires the following approvals: AUTHORISATION Name Signature Date WP Leader or coleader Alla Shogenova 23/01/2025 Project Coordinator Eirik Falck da Silva 24/01/2025 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 4 © CCUS ZEN Consortium, 2022 This document contains information which is proprietary to the CCUS ZEN consortium. No third-party textual or artistic material is included in the publication without the copyright holder’s prior consent to further dissemination by other third parties. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Disclaimer Co-funded by the European Union and UK Research and Innovation. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or UK Research and Innovation. Neither the European Union nor UK Research and Innovation can be held responsible for them.” No industry has committed at this stage to implement the scenarios presented in the deliverable D3.3. The scenarios presented here, while based on an industrial reality on the ground, are forward‐looking scenarios that explore the potential of CCUS in each of these regions Executive summary This report proposes a framework for initial screening of the most promising national and cross-border CCUS value chains at their very early stage of development and applies it to eight case studies from the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean Sea regions conducted by the Horizon Europe CCUS-ZEN project. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 5 The main objective of this report was to identify the most promising CCUS value chains for the CCUS ZEN regions based on SWOT analysis and to establish a generic framework for the selection of the most prospective CCUS value chains, based on the high-level screening methodology established in WP1 and integrated with WP2 analyses. Additional objectives of this report are to 1) document the methodology used for the SWOT analyses and extend the framework developed in WP1 for high-level screening to include selection of the most prospective CCUS value chains; 2) reveal which CO2 use options will permit use the most captured CO2, will produce the highest revenues, will be the most environmentally friendly and will provide the products with the longest life cycle for CO2 emission storage, and 3) compare the storage sites for the largest storage capacity, safety, injectivity, location and economic effectivity, and their storage readiness level (SRL). Availability of CO2 transport infrastructure and possibility for reuse will be strong side of the projects. Technical and non-technical data were first collected and integrated into a common GIS project for eight countries in the Baltic region and five countries in the Mediterranean region. To apply SWOT analysis to the prospective CCUS cluster projects, internal and external groups of parameters were first developed. Internal technical groups (strengths and weaknesses) include 1) CO2 emission plants, 2) CO2 storage sites, 3) available and planned infrastructure, and 4) CO2 use options. An external technical group includes 1) characteristics of the area around the storage site, and non-technical external groups include social and political development, international and national regulations, MRV (Monitoring Reporting and Verification) and accounting readiness, financial, readiness of CCUS value chain, CCUS in industrial strategy plan and interaction of CCUS with other decarbonization technologies which were analysed for opportunities and threats. The developed framework includes 25 internal quantitative technical parameters and 14 external qualitative parameters, which were collected for eight CCUS value chains in two sea regions. These internal and external parameters were the base for creating the SWOT matrix of CCUS value chains strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. For the qualitative parameters, an equivalent quantitative scaling method was designed to be able to include external parameters in the quantitative SWOT analysis. However, the export of CO2 to offshore storage sites needs CO2 storage regulations to be implemented internationally (London Protocol Amendment to article 6) and regionally (Helsinki and Barcelona Conventions), in addition to national regulations and permits needed for CO2 storage both in onshore and offshore sites. Despite these differences, it is possible to perform a unified quantitative analysis for all projects (both onshore and offshore) by utilising common internal technical factors and a shortlist of external technical and non-technical parameters. Here, we reported the semiquantitative results of the analysis, the framework for the quantitative SWOT analysis, and data collected for quantitative analysis. All the proposed projects have opportunities for implementation but need a considerable amount of work to be done starting from international and national political cooperation and development, regulatory and permitting changes, CCUS technologies development and implementation, cooperation of national stakeholders and governmental support of CCUS value chains. Cooperation with other technologies is also needed. The number of CCS PCI projects available in both studied regions is a good start for the possible development and implementation of the proposed CCUS value chains. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 6 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 7 Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS ............................................................................................ 9 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 11 2 Data and Methods ..................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Data .................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Non-technical parameters ............................................................................................... 14 2.2 Methods .............................................................................................................. 22 2.2.1 SWOT analysis .................................................................................................................... 22 2.2.2 The most prospective CO2 use options ............................................................................... 22 3 CO2 value chains in two regions .............................................................................. 26 3.1 Baltic - 1: Latvian - Lithuanian onshore CCUS project ................................... 26 3.1.1 CO2 emission clusters ..................................................................................................... 27 3.1.2 CO2 storage sites and CO2 transport in the Baltic-1 ........................................................ 28 3.2 Baltic - 2: Danish, Swedish and German CCUS onshore and offshore project …………………………………………………………………………………………….30 3.2.1 CO2 emission clusters ..................................................................................................... 31 3.2.2 CO2 storage sites and CO2 transport in the Baltic-2 ....................................................... 32 3.2.3 CO2 transport options in the Baltic-2 project ................................................................... 33 3.2.4 CO2 use options in the Baltic-2 ....................................................................................... 34 3.2.5 Main advantages ............................................................................................................. 35 3.2.6 Main challenges............................................................................................................... 35 3.3 Baltic - 3: Danish, Swedish and German CCUS onshore and nearshore project ............................................................................................................................ 36 3.3.1 CO2 emission clusters ..................................................................................................... 37 3.3.2 CO2 storage sites in Denmark and CO2 transport in the Baltic-3 .................................... 37 3.3.3 CO2 transport options in the Baltic-3 ............................................................................... 38 3.3.4 CO2 use options in the Baltic-3 ....................................................................................... 38 3.3.5 Main advantages ................................................................................................................. 38 3.3.6 Main challenges .................................................................................................................. 39 3.4 Baltic-4: Northern Poland CCUS onshore project ........................................... 39 3.4.1 CO2 emission sources in the Baltic-4 .............................................................................. 40 3.4.2 CO2 storage sites and CO2 transport in the Baltic-4 ....................................................... 41 3.4.3 CO2 use options in the Baltic-4 ....................................................................................... 43 3.4.4 Main advantages ............................................................................................................... 44 3.4.5 Main challenges .................................................................................................................. 44 3.5 Comparison of the Baltic Projects ................................................................... 44 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 8 3.6 Mediterranean-1: Turkiye - Greece offshore CCUS project ............................ 45 3.6.1 CO2 emissions and transport .............................................................................................. 46 3.6.2 CO2 storage site .................................................................................................................. 48 3.6.3 CO2 use options in Med-1 ................................................................................................... 48 3.6.4 Main Advantages ................................................................................................................. 49 3.6.5 Main Challenges .................................................................................................................. 50 3.7 Mediterranean 2 (Med-2): France – Spain CCUS offshore project ................. 50 3.7.1 CO2 emitters .................................................................................................................... 51 3.7.2 Storage site ..................................................................................................................... 54 3.7.3 CO2 use options in Med-2 ............................................................................................... 54 3.7.4 CO2 Transport ................................................................................................................. 56 3.7.5 Main Advantages ............................................................................................................. 56 3.7.6 Main Challenges .............................................................................................................. 57 3.8 Mediterranean 3 (Med-3): Southern France onshore CCUS project ............... 57 3.8.1 CO2 Emitters .................................................................................................................... 57 3.8.2 CO2 Storage ..................................................................................................................... 58 3.8.3 CO2 use options in Med-3 ............................................................................................... 59 3.8.4 CO2 Transport .................................................................................................................. 59 3.8.5 Main Advantages ............................................................................................................. 59 3.8.6 Main Challenges .............................................................................................................. 60 3.9 Mediterranean 4 (Med-4): Southern Italy – Greece CCUS onshore project with onshore and offshore transport ................................................................................... 60 3.9.1 CO2 Emitters ........................................................................................................................ 61 3.9.2 Storage site ......................................................................................................................... 63 3.9.3 CO2 use options in Med-4 ................................................................................................... 63 3.9.4 CO2 transport ....................................................................................................................... 64 3.9.5 Main advantages ................................................................................................................. 65 3.9.6 Main challenges .................................................................................................................. 65 3.10 Comparison of the Mediterranean Projects ......................................................... 65 4 SWOT Analysis of Value Chains .............................................................................. 66 4.1 Internal and External Groups of Factors .......................................................... 66 4.2 Internal Factors Assessment for two regions ................................................. 66 4.3 External Factors Assessment in two regions .................................................. 69 4.4 Integration of technical and nontechnical factors........................................... 72 5 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 73 6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 76 7 Reference List ........................................................................................................... 77 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 9 ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS Abbreviations CCS – CO2 Capture and Storage CCU – Carbon Capture and Utilisation CCUS – CO2 Capture, Utilization and Storage CO2 – Carbon Dioxide CP – Cement Plant DAC – Direct Air Capture DEA – Danish Energy Agency D1.2 – Deliverable 1.2 of CCUS ZEN project WP1 DOGF – Depleted Oil & Gas field DSA – Deep saline aquifer EU – European Union IPCEI – Important Project of Common European Interest ISO – International Standard Organisation GHG – Greenhouse Gas GIS – Geographic Information System QGIS – is an open-source geographic information system LCO2 – liquid CO2 MRV – Monitoring, Reporting and Verification N - Number NECP – National Energy and Climate Plans NCT – National Carbon Tax PP – Power Plant SPA –Special Protection Area T&S – Transport and Storage WP3 – Work Package 3 WTE – Waste-to-energy Units m – metre g/l – gram per litre kg – kilogram kg/m3 – kilograms per cubic metre kg/s – kilograms per second km – kilometer D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 16 Figure 2-5 Map of national CCS regulations in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions. Table 2-3 International, regional and national CCS regulations in the studied regions Country London Protocol HELCOM Barcelona Convention EU CCS Directive CO2 STORAGE Baltic Sea Region Denmark 2019 Provisional Application of Article 6.2 Member Nm Implemented Permitted onshore and offshore Estonia Amendment to Article 6 implemented Member Nm Implemented R&D only Finland Amendment to Article 6 implemented Member Nm Implemented R&D only Germany Member of London Protocol Member Nm Implemented R&D only Latvia Nonmember Member Nm Implemented R&D only Lithuania Nonmember Member Nm Implemented Any CO2 injections banned Poland Member of London Convention Member Nm Implemented R&D only Sweden 2019 Provisional Application of Article 6.2 Member Nm Implemented Permitted only offshore D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 17 Country London Protocol HELCOM Barcelona Convention EU CCS Directive CO2 STORAGE Mediterranean Sea Region France Member of London Protocol Nm Member Implemented Permitted onshore and offshore Greece Member of London Convention Nm Member Implemented Excluding selected areas Italy Member of London Protocol Nm Member Implemented Excluding selected areas Spain Member of London Protocol Nm Member Implemented Permitted onshore and offshore Turkey Nonmember Nm Member Not applicable No CCS regulations Nm – non member Figure 2-6 Map of international regulations (London Protocol) in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 18 Figure 2-7 Map of MRV and Accounting Readiness in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions Table 2-4 Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV)* and Accounting Readiness** in the Studied Regions *MRV Readiness is an expert judgment based on the following factors: 1) known presence of geological survey companies, 2) known previous participation of key actors in carbon markets, 3) existence of plans for CCS activities. ** Readiness of the national GHG inventory responsible office. Expert judgment based on the following factors: 1) previous engagement on CCS-related accounting questions, 2) overall quality of previous GHG inventory reports. Country MRV* Accounting readiness and Carbon Market** Baltic Sea Region Denmark High High Estonia Low Low Finland Medium High Germany Medium High Latvia Low Low Lithuania Low Low Poland Low Low Sweden Medium High Mediterranean Sea Region France Medium Medium Greece Low Low Italy Low Medium Spain Low Medium Turkey Low Low D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 19 Figure 2-8 Map of governmental financial support for CCUS projects in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions. Figure 2-9 Map of readiness of the CCUS value chain in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 20 Figure 2-10 Map of CCUS in marine and land use planning in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions. Figure 2-11 Map of interaction of CCUS with other decarbonization technologies in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 21 Table 2-5 Business Model, Complexity of the CCUS Value Chain, Interaction with Decarbonisation Technologies and Marine and Land Use Planning in the Studied Regions Business model Complexity of the CCUS value chain Interaction with other decarbonisation technologies Marine and land use planning Country Government financial support available for CCS projects CO2 capture, transport and storage infrastructure CCUS in Industrial Strategy / Plan CCUS in marine planning CCUS in land-use planning Baltic Region Denmark Yes - tailored to individual projects C, T & S in development Yes Yes Yes - national & regional Estonia No None No No No Finland Yes - tailored to individual projects Capture available Yes No Yes - national & regional Germany No C & T in development No strategy / plan No No Latvia No Capture in development No strategy / plan No No Lithuania No Storage available No strategy / plan No No Poland No C & S in development No strategy / plan No No Sweden Yes - tailored to individual projects C & T available Yes No No Mediterranean Region France No C, T & S in development No No Yes - regional Greece Yes - tailored to individual projects T & S in development Yes No No Italy Yes - tailored to individual projects C in development, S available Yes No No Spain No C, T & S available Yes No No Turkey No None No No No D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 22 2.2 Methods 2.2.1 SWOT analysis SWOT analysis is a strategic planning technique used to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to project planning. SWOT analysis of the prospective CCUS cluster projects was applied to technical and non-technical groups of parameters. Internal group include aspects characterized strengths and weaknesses of the project, while external group include aspects characterising external opportunities and threats (risks) of the project. For quantification of SWOT analysis, the methodology reported and applied by (Chang & Huang, 2006) could be applied. The Quantified SWOT analytical method applies the concept of Multiple-Attribute Decision Making (MADM), using a multi-layer scheme to simplify complicated problems. As we have to analyse together quantitative and qualitative data, we need statistical methodology. In this report we propose the weights of internal and external factors to be the same. Weights of key factors can be calculated by using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) proposed by Saaty (1980) and applied to SWOT analysis by Chang & Huang (2006). Figure 2-12 Flowchart of quantified SWOT analysis proposed by (Chang & Huang, 2006) Internal group (strengths and weaknesses) include aspects of 1) CO2 emission plants, 2) CO2 storage sites, 3) available and planned infrastructure, and 4) CO2 use options. 2.2.2 The most prospective CO2 use options To analyse CO2 use options and to apply the most prospective ones for our CCUS value chains, we prepared the Table 2-6, where the short list of the most promising CCU products is reported based on the recent studies (EC, 2019, Chauvy et al, 2019 and Shokrollahi et al, 2024). D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 23 CCU represents and array of technologies leading to different types of products like fuels, chemicals or construction materials. In some of those cases the time that the carbon is stored into the product can vary for short (as in the case of fuels - one year in Table 2-6), to short/medium (as in the case of chemicals and polymers – 10 years), to very long (as in the case of mineralisation products where the CO2 is permanently bound in the form of carbonates – 50 years in Table 2-6). Accordingly, the climate mitigation effect of the CCU products varies and it depends strongly on the source of CO2, the energy mix used for their production, the geographical location, the technological maturity of the process, the conventional product that they replace. In the EC report (EC, 2019) the CCU technologies were analysed including their regulatory aspects. We are discussing here CO2 use as a feedstock to convert it into value added products such as polymers, minerals, chemicals and synthetic fuels. CCU could offer a promising option for circular economy, industrial innovation and decarbonisation, as well as competitiveness of energy intensive industries. However, policy support is needed to integrate CCU into the CCUS value chains and to bring economic revenues to the large projects. The climate mitigation potential of CCU technologies is dependent on the carbon intensity of the electricity used for the processes, the efficiency of the technologies, the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of other inputs, how long the CO2 stays in its new form, and which products or fuels they replace. Their life cycle analysis can lead to very different results. This report determined 15 the most promising CCU products from the long list of 130: fuels and base chemicals (ethanol, methane (biological), methane (chemical hydrogenative), methanol, oxymethylene ether (OME1)), chemicals (ethylene; propylene), intended for the production of polymers (polyethylene (PE)), polyoxymethylene (POM), polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (BisA-PC), polyols for polyurethane (PU) foams production) and minerals (calcium carbonate and sodium carbonate). In this study another important conclusion was made, based of LCA. When considering the same product patterns, the retention time for carbon in CCU products versus conventional (fossilor bio-based) products remain the same and thus is an irrelevant metric for measuring the CO2 balance. 2) From a climate mitigation perspective, the benefit of CCU processes depends on the net GHG emission balance of the process from cradle-to-gate, for all types of products (minerals, polymers, fuels and chemicals) under the condition that conventional products are replaced. In the study of Chauvy et al, 2019 the best CO2 utilization products based on the lower unit price and high market volume were found: methanol, methane, calcium carbonates, microalgae, sodium carbonates, urea, syngas and ethanol, and compounds that have a high unit price but low market volume, such as dimethyl carbonates, polycarbonates, formic acid and salicylic acid. In the most recent study of Shokrollahi et al, 2024 the extensive statistical analysis of 133 CO2 utilization pathways were identified from the literature and evaluated using a Multi Criteria Decision Analysis tool, which is based on an Analytic Hierarchy Process, for three different scenarios. These analyses compared 1) technology readiness level, 2) global market size, 3) global market price, 4) CO2 utilization volume, and 5) CO2 retention time as screening criteria. Also, three different scenarios, including Economic Vision, Environmental Vision, and Immediate Environmental Action, were considered. The results show that 10 products including calcium carbonate, ethylene, ethylene oxide, methane, polyethylene, polypropylene, syngas, synthetic fuel, and urea are the most promising CO2-based products with respect to the three considered scenarios. As a last step, a general framework was developed to calculate the minimum selling price of the selected CO2 utilization pathways D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 24 to provide comparable economic results. The highest minimum selling prices were associated with polyethylene and ethylene oxide. In the Table 2-6 the urea is excluded from this short list, based on the conclusion from EC, 2019 (high TRL level and available conventional technology). The included nine CO2-based products include fuels, chemicals and mineral carbonation products with TRL from 6 to 9, market price in the range of 171-1625 Euro, Global market size in the range of 55-8447 Mt. Table 2-6 Parameters of the most prospective CO2-based products (Shorollahi et al, 2024 and EC, 2019) N CO2 conversion method CO2 use product Glob al mark et size, Mt/y Specific mass t CO2/t product Total CO2 use volume , Mt/y Product market price (Euro/t) Rete ntion time, years TRL 1 Mineral carbonation Calcium Carbonate, CaCO3 125.3 0.439 55.1 309 50 9 2 CO2 Hydrogenation Methane, CH4 2300 2.750 6309 171 1 7 3 Dry reforming Syngas (Synthesis gas, mixture of H2, CO and CO2) 968.1 1.292 1251 341 1 8 4 CO2 Hydrogenation Methanol, CH3OH 65.0 1.373 89.3 331 1 8 5 CO2 Hydrogenation Syntetic Liquid fuels (synfuel), (Mixture of CO and H2) 2728 3.096 8447 1625 1 6 6 CO2 Hydrogenation Ethylene (C2H4) 165.0 3.138 517.8 965 1 8 7 CO2 Hydrogenation Ethylene oxide, (CH2CH2O) 32.3 1.997 64.5 1355 1 9 8 CO2 Hydrogenation Polyethylene(C2 H4)n 99.6 3.138 312.5 1107 10 8 9 CO2 Hydrogenation Polypropylene, (C₃H₆)ₙ 69.1 3.139 216.9 1219 10 8 Total range 32.3 - 2728 0.4393.139 558447 171-1625 1-50 6-9 CCU revenue was excluded from the list of internal parameters for SWOT analysis, considering very uncertain and various CCU production cost, which are reported by different reports and publications. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 25 Figure 2.13 The evolution of the e-SAF cost based on the electricity price (Skypower, 2024). According to a recent study by the Skypower Project (Skypower, 2024), the levelised cost of production of unsubsidized e-SAF production in Europe by 2030 would span from 5000-8000 €/t, approximately 5-8 times higher than the price of fossil jet fuel. Up to 45% of this amount is related to the price of renewable electricity and up to 60% corresponds to the CAPEX of the electrolyser and the fuel synthesis installation. The Figure 2.13 shows the evolution of the eSAF cost based on the electricity price. H2 and CO2 are considered as two of the main contributors of the costs of e-methanol and estimates that these costs can decrease to levels as low as 250 $/t by 2050 (IRENA AND METHANOL INSTITUTE, 2021). Scientific literature shows a rather wide spectrum in cost evaluation for e-methanol and e-SAF mainly due to the difference in the underlying assumptions. Sollai et al. (2023) have calculated a levelized cost for the production of methanol (LcoM) from industrial CO2 of about 960€/t, around double the current market price for fossil-derived methanol; they have also estimated the correlation between LcoM, electricity costs and hours of operation (Figure 2.14). Figure 2.14. A levelized cost for the production of methanol (LcoM) variation with plant operation and electricity cost (Sollai et al., 2023). A base minimum selling price (equivalent to the levelised cost of production) of an e-SAF based on atmospheric CO2 was estimated at about 6200 €/t, highly sensitive on electricity prices and DAC costs. Increasing production capacities of Power-to-Liquid systems will according to the writers lead to cost reductions as scaling up a DAC PtL system is not limited by feedstock supply and has less location restrictions (Rojas-Michaga et al., 2023). D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 32 In its preliminary form, as detailed in Deliverable 1.2 (Gravaud et al., 2023), the Baltic-2 project included eight different emission clusters, including 37 emitters from the three participating countries, which collectively emit approximately 42.6 Mt of CO2 annually. The reporting of the clusters carried out in Deliverable D3.1, however, has modified the list based on additional technical and commercial examinations. Nine emission clusters were identified with up to 33 individual emission sources in total, resulting in 22.7 Mt annual maximum emissions and captured maximum amount nearing 20.1 Mt. For the present analysis, the minimum estimates in Deliverable 1.2 (Gravaud et al., 2024) for emissions are selected. The industry designation is summarised from Deliverable D3.1 (Shogenova et al. 2024). The results are shown in Table 3-8. Table 3-8 Clusters of CO2 emissions of Baltic 2 value chain Cluster ID Country CO2 emissions Mt/y (minmax) Industry Number of emitters (minmax) Planning CO2 use Bremen Cluster Germany 2.78–3.43 Power 2–3 ? Hannover Cluster Germany 3.12–3.99 Power, cement 4–5 Y Hamburg Cluster Germany 1.05–3.80 Power, cement 1–4 Y Gothenburg Cluster Sweden 3.12–4.12 Refinery, chemical, waste, power 5–9 Y Aalborg Cluster Denmark 2.48–2.48 Cement, power 2–2 Y Aarhus Cluster Denmark 0.82–2.72 Power 2–3 ? West Midtjylland Cluster Denmark 0.00–0.62 Power, waste 0–2 ? Fredericia Cluster Denmark 0.85–1.28 Power, refinery 3–4 Y Esbjerg Emitter Denmark 0.22 Power, waste 1 ? Total 14.44–22.66 20–33 3.2.2 CO2 storage sites and CO2 transport in the Baltic-2 Table 3-9 Properties of CO2 storage sites in Denmark in the Baltic-2 value chain (a) Storage site name Stora ge type Storage unit Lithology Area, km2 Net to gross ratio Depth Top, m Thickness, m Poro sity, % Perme ability, mD Tempe rature, °C Press ure, MpA CO2den sity, kg/m3 Gassum DSA Gassum Fm Sandstone 233 80 1364 130 25 461 40 14 750 Voldum DSA Gassum Fm Sandstone 560 80 1700 128 25 464 50 18 750 Jammerbu gt DSA Gassum Fm Sandstone 140 80 1880 120 25 400 55 19 730 Inez DSA Gassum Fm Sandstone 250 80 1660 120 25 400 45 17 770 Bifrost DOG F Jurassic Sandstone 16 80 3475 100 20 200 90 36 760 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 33 Greensand DOG F Paleocen e Sandstone 16 80 1650 100 25 600 45 17 770 Lisa DSA Gassum Fm Sandstone 70 80 1720 120 25 400 50 18 750 Thorning DSA Gassum Fm Sandstone 210 80 1500 130 18 109 45 16 750 Table 3-10 Properties of CO2 storage sites in the Baltic 2 value chain (b) Storage site Seal Seal lithology Seal Thickness Second ary_se als Bound ary_co ndition Seff Capac ity mean SRL Seismic_s urvey Well s Aband oned wells Modeli ng Base_ line data Gassum Lower Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Open 10 146 2 2D 1 1 - - Voldum Lower Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Open 10 213 2 2D 1 1 - - Jammerbugt Lower Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Open 10 100 2 2D 0 - - Inez Lower Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Open 10 178 2 2D 1 1 - - Bifrost Lower Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Open 10 60 6 3D 5 3 + - Greensand Lower Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Open 10 128 6 3D 10 + - Lisa Lower Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Open 10 29 2 2D 0 - - Thorning Lower Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Open 10 74 2 2D 0 - - Total 928 2-6 18 3.2.3 CO2 transport options in the Baltic-2 project The transport infrastructure solutions presented in Deliverable D3.1 (Shogenova et al. 2024) considers that all CO2 captured in the Bremen cluster is utilised in a CCU sub-value chain. Emissions captured in the Gothenburg cluster which are not utilised in a local CCU infrastructure, are sent to offshore geological storage sites in Denmark (Inez and Lisa). From Esbjerg, a ship with CO2 from Germany, Fredericia and Esbjerg is sent to Greensand and Inez. All CO2 that cannot be shipped from these clusters or that is captured from the remaining clusters is sent to a pipeline network. Within the pipeline network, the CO2 not used in a CCU installation in Aalborg is distributed to the geological storage sites Bifrost, Jammerbugt, Gassum, Voldum and Thorning. Examples of pipeline routes have been listed in Deliverable D3.1 (Shogenova et al. 2025) and a few selected for the Baltic-2 cluster are presented here in Table 3-11. Table 3-11 Pipeline list for the selected scenario Pip e # From To Cluster Country Phas e State Flowra t , t/h Length , km Siz e, in P18 Intersection Esbjerg Bifrost Shared Infrastructure Denmark 1 dense 100 256 14 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 34 P23 Intersection close to S_DK_18 Intersection west Gassum Shared Infrastructure Denmark 1 dense 751 81 24 P24 Intersection west Gassum Gassum Shared Infrastructure Denmark 1 dense 463 37 18 The assumption presented in Deliverable D3.1 (Shogenova et al. 2024) is that CO2 from the Gothenburg and Esbjerg clusters will be shipped to offshore storage locations in Denmark. The respective ship cycle times are presented in Table 3-12. Table 3-12 Cycle times from selected harbours to offshore storage sites From To Distance, km Cycle time, h Gothenburg Lisa 210 54 Gothenburg Inez 330 65 Esbjerg Inez 215 54 Esbjerg Greensand 255 58 The selected scenario for transportation infrastructure is a concept out of many possible. The current selection is not equivalent to a thorough analysis and comparison between the different transportation solution. Nonetheless, it takes inspiration in existing or planned projects and provides a pragmatic solution for implementing a CCUS network in the three countries analysed. 3.2.4 CO2 use options in the Baltic-2 Two CO2 utilization pathways (near emitters or near intermediate hubs) were explored within this region, converting CO2 into methanol or synthetic jet fuel, as described in Deliverable D3.1 (Shogenova et al. 2024). Nevertheless, The Swedish FlagshipONE e-methanol project under development, considered as the “largest e-Methanol project under construction in Europe” was recently scrapped by Orsted (August 2024) and possible offtakes are not identified yet. Most shipping firms remained reluctant in committing to long-term procurement contracts for methanol produced via sustainable means and the project was challenged by higher energy, equipment and capex costs. This may reveal the immaturity of the regulatory system and measures in place currently struggle to bridge the price gaps between fossil and synthetic marine fuels (S&P Global, 2024). In Denmark and Germany, there are still active projects for CO2utilization. Power-to-Liquid plant at H&R's Hamburg from Power-to-Liquid synthesis technology, developed by Karlsruhebased technology company INERATEC, will in future produce around 200 tons of e-Fuels for road as well as rail transport and around 150 tons of e-Waxes for use in the cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food industries (P2XEurope (2022). Recently 30 CCU projects with total budget of about 0.83 M DKK in various stages of research and development were reported in Denmark (INNO-CCUS, 2023) D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 35 Using the same methodology and assumptions than explained in D3.1, 20.14 Mt/y of CO2 will be captured in Baltic-2, including 8.06 Mt of bio-CO2. It is also assumed that 6.05 Mt of captured biogenic CO2 will go to utilization. A full overview by cluster is shown in table 3-13, with total captured emission and utilized, including two options, methanol and synthetic jet fuel. Average capture capacity per installation in every country is also estimated for the Baltic2. Table 3-13 Overview of possible CO2 for capture and utilisation for Baltic-2 (Shogenova et al, 2024, D3.1) Country Cluster acting as collection hub Total captured CO2 from all emitters, Mt/y Captured Biogenic CO2 (Included in total), Mt/y Captured CO2 from all emitters for CCU, Mt/y Number of CCU installati ons close to the collectio n hub Averag e capture capacit y of CCU installat ion, Mt/y Average product capacity of CCU installation, Mt/y Metha nol Synthetic jet fuel Germany Bremen 10.66 5.59 3.2 5 0.64 0.45 0.192 Denmark Aalborg 5.53 1.82 1.66 5 0.332 0.232 0.100 Sweden Gothenburg 3.95 0.65 1.19 5 0.238 0.167 0.072 Total for Baltic-2 20.14 8.06 6.05 15 0.240.64 4.25 1.82 3.2.5 Main advantages The proposed value chain promotes cross-border cooperation for 9 industrial clusters from three countries and translates potential investment possibilities being studied today by multiple parties. The Baltic-2 cluster include 8 storage sites in Denmark with very good reservoir properties, large thickness of primary cap rocks, high storage capacity about 1Gt CO2 and has various options to transport CO2 from 9 emission clusters in three countries to 8 storage sites located onshore, nearshore and offshore and represented by DOGFs and DSAs. CO2 capture and CO2 use options are under development and many CCUS research and demo projects are ongoing in Denmark. The favourable CCS policies and regulations and financial governmental support in Denmark, where CO2 storage sites are located and implemented international regulations in Demark and Sweden are additional advantages. 3.2.6 Main challenges The main challenge for this project is connected with international regulations. From three participating countries, Germany did not implement an amendment to the article 6 of London Protocol and did not send the provisional application to IMO. However, according to EU CCS Directive, bilateral agreement between two participating countries (CO2 emitting and storing|) D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 36 can be the same legal basis as London Protocol provisions, needed for export of CO2 for geological storage under the seabed. 3.3 Baltic - 3: Danish, Swedish and German CCUS onshore and nearshore project The Baltic-3 project is a cross-border value chain with 5.9 Mt of CO2 emissions produced by 16 plants from Denmark, Sweden and Germany and three storage sites (Havnsø, Stenlille and Rødby) onshore and nearshore Denmark in Zealand and Lolland. The total average storage capacity is about 224 Mt CO2. The distance from CO2 clusters to storage sites is from 5 up to 200 km, the total estimated transport distance is 460 km. Figure 3.3 Baltic-3 project (Copenhagen hub value chain in D1.2). Dots surrounded by red polygons represent emission clusters. Orange forms represent onshore/nearshore storage sites. Yellow and brown lines represent shipping and pipeline transportation, respectively. Two CO2 emission clusters in Denmark (Copenhagen and North-western Zealand) produced in 2021 about 1.9 Mt CO2, South Sweden cluster produced 1.5 Mt CO2 and Rostock cluster produced 2.5 Mt CO2. The Baltic-3 combined onshore cluster has 3 storage sites available. Exploration licenses have been issued for the onshore Havnsø site (Equinor Low Carbon Solutions Denmark A/S & Ørsted Carbon Solutions A/S) and for the Rødby storage site (Carboncuts A/S). D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 37 Table 3-14 Parameters of the Baltic 3 value chain Involved countrie s Total CO2 emissions , Mt/y Emmissio n sources Emiss ion cluste rs Storage sites Numbe r of storage sites Total capacity , Mt Distance from emission s to storage, km Emissio n clusters per country Storag e sites per cluster Germany Denmark Sweden 5.9 16 4 Onshore - Rødby, Havnsø, Stenlille 3 224 5-115 1.3 0.75 3.3.1 CO2 emission clusters Table 3-15 Clusters of CO2 emissions of Baltic 3 value chain. CO2 cluster Country City/Region Industry sector CO2 emissions Mt/y Number of emitters Planning CO2 use Starting Year 1 Germany Rostock Cement 2.52 3 ? 2030 2 Denmark Copenhagen WTE 1.36 6 Y 2030 3 Denmark NW Zealand Cement 0.53 1 ? 2030 4 Sweden South Sweden Power, Natural gas 1.50 6 Y 2030 Total 5.91 16 3.3.2 CO2 storage sites in Denmark and CO2 transport in the Baltic-3 Table 3-16 Properties of CO2 storage sites in the Baltic 3 value chain (a) Stor age type Storage site Daughter Unit Lithol ogy Are a, km2 Net to gross ratio Depth Top, m Thic knes s, m Poros ity Perme ability , mD Te mp erat ure, °C Press ure, MpA CO2de nsity, kg/m3 DSA Stenlille Gassum Sandstone 24 0.8 1460 150 0.25 600 42 16 770 DSA Havnsø Gassum Sandstone 119 0.46 1375 200 0.22 260 40 16 790 DSA Rødby Bunter Sandstone 138 0.24 1075 256 0.24 385 35 15 810 Average 94 0.50 1303 202 0 415 39 16 790 Table 3-17 Properties of CO2 storage sites in the Baltic 3 value chain (b) Daug hter Unit Seal Seal_l itholo gy Seal_t hickn ess Second ary_sea ls Bou ndar y_c ondi tion Se ff Cap acit y mea n S R L Seism ic_sur vey We lls Aba ndo ned well s Mo del ing Bas e_lin e data Gassu m Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Ope n 0.1 36 3 3D 19 + + Gassu m Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Ope n 0.1 76 2 2D 0 + - D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 38 Bunter Jurassic Claystone 150 Cretace ous Ope n 0.1 112 2 2D 2 2 + - Average 150 Total 224 21 2 The estimated storage capacities have been modified compared to early reports due to a new evaluation of the storage efficiency coefficient, lowering this from 0.40 to 0.10. 3.3.3 CO2 transport options in the Baltic-3 For CO2 transportation, the value chain needs a pipeline network connecting the three storage sites with clusters. For the Rostock cluster in Germany, shipping line in the value chain, during the initial stage would transport the CO2 to the Rødby storage site. On a further stage, a pipeline could transport the CO2 from the Rostock cluster to any of the three storage sites selected. The Copenhagen cluster can serve as an import hub of CO2 from other clusters, connecting South Sweden cluster by pipeline. This value chain segment has been studied in multiple projects such as the C4 – Carbon Capture Cluster Copenhagen for the storage sites of Stenlille and Havnsø. The North-western Zealand cluster, presented by only one emitter, represents the possibility of an import hub to collect CO2 from multiple cross-border locations by ship and send it to the Havnsø storage site. 3.3.4 CO2 use options in the Baltic-3 “Green Fuels for Denmark” is an IPCEI supported project in the area of Copenhagen. The latest news of September 2024 about this project is that the main partner Ørsted has announced a suspension of the project. Green Fuels for Denmark was a flagship project for the production of green fuels and was the first gigawatt-scale hydrogen plant to be conceived in the world. The project was launched May 2020 with Copenhagen Airport, A. P. MøllerMærsk, DSV, DFDS, SAS and Ørsted as partners. Unfortunately, now put on hold. Baltic-3 project produced 4.55 Mt CO2 from cement an energy industry, 1.36 Mt from W-t-E industry and in total 5.91 Mt. From this amount 5.62 Mt could be captured and 0.56 Mt used (Table 3-18). Table 3-18 Overview of possible CO2 for capture and utilization for Baltic-3 Country Cluster Location - City/Region Industry sector CO2 emissions produced Mt/y Number of emitters CO2 emissions captured, Mt/y CO2 emissions used, Mt/y Germany Rostock Cement 2.52 3 2.39 0.24 Denmark Copenhagen WtE 1.36 6 1.29 0.13 Denmark NW Zealand Cement 0.53 1 0.50 0.05 Sweden South Sweden Power, Natural gas 1.5 6 1.43 0.14 Total 5.91 16 5.62 0.56 3.3.5 Main advantages The proposed value chain promotes cross-border cooperation for three countries and translates potential investment possibilities being studied today by multiple parties. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 39 The Copenhagen cluster shows also interesting potential for the CCU applications with the (now suspended) Lighthouse project of Green fuels for Denmark receiving IPCEI funding, or the Vordingborg port project for the production of CCU fuels from captured CO2 and renewable hydrogen. 3.3.6 Main challenges The main challenge for this project could be the same as for the Baltic-2 project, connected with international regulations. From three participating countries, Germany did not implement an amendment to the article 6 of London Protocol and did not send the provisional application to IMO. However, according to EU CCS Directive, bilateral agreement between two participating countries (CO2 emitting and storing|) can be the same legal basis as London Protocol provisions, needed for export of CO2 for geological storage under the seabed. 3.4 Baltic-4: Northern Poland CCUS onshore project The value chain includes southern cluster of Northern Poland region studied in D1.2, the Kuyavia-Masovia cluster Figure 3.4. There are 18 emitters within the cluster, 11 in case of old coal fired energy installations are disregarded. These 11 emitters selected make 8.19 Mt CO2 per year Table 3-20 to be captured then stored or used. Two saline aquifer structures (Konary and Kamionki) located nearby the four emitter subclusters are proposed as storage sites, where CO2 can be delivered by pipelines of length 4.2-38.2 km, connecting the emission subclusters and storage sites. Figure 3.4 Map of the Baltic-4 scenario with pipeline routes modelled using (where possible) natural gas pipelines corridors. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 40 3.4.1 CO2 emission sources in the Baltic-4 Table 3-19 Parameters of the Baltic-4 value chain Involve d countrie s Total CO2 emis sions , Mt/y Emmissio n sources Emissio n clusters Storage sites, onshore Numb er of stora ge sites Total capaci ty, Mt Distanc e from emissio ns to storage, km Emissi on cluster s per countr y Stora ge sites per cluste r Poland 8.19 11 4 Konary (S_PL24), Kamionki (S_PL22) 2 381 4.2-38.2 4 0.4 Table 3-20 Clusters of CO2 emissions of Baltic 4 value chain CO2 clus ter Emitter ID Facility name City/Regi on Industry sector CO2 emission s Mt/y Planning CO2 use Planni ng H2 produ ction Starti ng Year CCUS ZEN network ing Partner 1 E_PL_4 3 Bydgosz cz WtE Bydgoszcz Energy from waste 0.164 No 2030 No Total for cluster 1 0.164 2 E_PL_3 LaFarge Cement Piechcin Bielawy PiechcinBielawy Cement 1.266 No 2028 Parent compan y Holcim 2 E_PL_6 5 Piechcin lime Piechcin Other - Lime 0.196 No 2030 No 2 E_PL_2 7 Janikow o chemica ls Janikowo Chemicals (other) 0.179 No 2030 No 2 E_PL_2 7 Inowroc ław chemica ls Inowrocła w Chemicals (other) 0.241 No 2030 No Total for cluster 2 1.882 No 3 E_PL_1 17 Włocła wek NGCC Włocławe k Power (CHP), Natural gas 1.022 No 2030 No 3 E_PL_1 Włocła wek ammoni a Włocławe k Ammonia 0.791 Yes blue then green 2030 No Total for cluster 3 1.813 4 E_PL_1 93 Płock refiner Płock Refineries 2.557 Yes blue then green 2030 No 4 E_PL_2 1 Płock chemica ls Płock Chemicals (other) 0.721 Yes blue then green 2030 No D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 41 4 E_PL_2 2 Płock chemica ls Płock Chemicals (other) 0.103 Yes blue then green 2030 No 4 E_PL_1 77 Płock NGCC Płock Power (CHP), Natural gas 0.947 No 2030 No Total for cluster 4 4.328 Total for Baltic-4 8.187 Bydgoszcz subcluster includes one small energy from waste plant, Piechcin-JanikowoInowrocław subcluster includes cement (the biggest emitter in the subcluster, owned by Holcim-Lafarge), lime and chemical plants (owned by CIECH), and Włocławek subcluster – an ammonia and a CCS-ready gas fired power plant of Orlen. Płock subcluster, of the biggest emission share in the value chain, includes an oil refinery (the biggest emitter there), chemical plants and a CCS-ready gas fired power plant of Orlen. 3.4.2 CO2 storage sites and CO2 transport in the Baltic-4 Table 3-21 Properties of CO2 storage sites in the Baltic 4 value chain (a) Stor age site ID Stor age typ e Storag e unit Daughter Unit Lith olog y Area , km2 Dept h Top, m Thick ness, m Po ros ity, % Perme ability , mD Temperat ure, °C Pres sure , MPa CO2 density, kg/m3 S_P L24 DSA Lower Jurassic to lowermost Middle Jurassic multiple: Borucice, Drzewica, Gielniów, Ostrowiec Sand stone 250 847 160 15 300 41 8.6 392 S_P L22 DSA Lower Cretace ous Mogilno Sand stone 75 1285 80 20 400 42 12.7 689 Table 3-22 Properties of CO2 storage sites in the Baltic 4 value chain (b) Daug hter Unit Seal Seal_lith ology Seal_thic kness, m Secondary _seals Boundary_ condition Se ff, % Cap acity mea n S R L Seismic_ survey W el ls Aband oned wells Mod eling Base _line data multi ple: Boru cice, Drze wica, Gieln iów, Ostro wiec Lower Bajoci an Clayston e, Mudston e 71 Bathonian Closed 20 282 2 2D 3 3 - - Mogil no Upper Cretac eous Marl, marly limeston 250 Cretaceous Closed 20 99 2 2D 3 3 - - Concerning storage options Table 3-22, the multi-reservoir Jurassic saline aquifer structure Konary is proposed as a storage site of three subclusters located W, NW and E of the structure Figure 3.4. Another storage site is the double-reservoir saline aquifer structure Kamionki (Lower Cretaceous D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 48 Turkiye E_TU_1 16 Habaş Doğalgaz Aliağa Power 3.39 1.61 Prinos Habaş Doğalgaz to Gathering Facility 2.42 Turkiye E_TU_1 11 Enka Doğalgaz Aliağa Power 4.94 2.35 Prinos Enka Doğalgaz to Gathering Facility 2.53 Turkiye E_TU_1 74 Habaş Aliağa Iron & Steel 0.36 0.09 Prinos Habaş to Gathering Facility 1.53 Turkiye E_TU_1 69 Star Rafinerisi Aliağa Refineri es 2.44 1.16 Prinos Star Rafinerisi to Petkim Petrokim ya 0.7 Turkiye E_TU_1 67 İzmir Rafinerisi Aliaga Refineri es 2.35 1.12 Prinos İzmir Rafinerisi to Tüpraş Termik Santralı 1.15 Total for Aliaga Cluster 22.17 10.07 20.72 Total for Med-1 40.00 18.64 3.6.2 CO2 storage site Table 3-28 Properties of CO2 storage sites in the Med 1 value chain (a) Country Storage site ID Storag e type Storage unit Daugh ter Unit Lithol ogy Area, km2 Net to gross ratio Depth Top, m Thick - ness, m Porosit y, % Perme ability, mD Tem perat ure, °C Press ure, MpA CO2 density, kg/m3 Greece S_GR6 DSA Prinos sand Prinos aquife r Sands tone 800 0.8 2400 260 18 50 110 31 724.77 Table 3-29 Properties of CO2 storage sites in the Med 1 value chain (b) Daug hter Unit Seal Seal_ litholog y Seal_ Thickne s, m Secondary seals Boundar y_condit ion Seff Capacit y mean SR L Seismic_ survey Well s Aband oned wells Modeling Base _line data Prinos Mioce ne DSA Evaporit es 150 1350 1 3.6.3 CO2 use options in Med-1 In Turkey, power sector remains the main contributor to CO2 emissions Table 3-27 and needs to be addressed as a priority for decarbonisation. Besides, CO2 use options are studied by stakeholders through two main EU-funded projects. COZMOS is one of the main EU-funded project including Turkish industrial partners like D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 49 Tüpras and Linde Gas, that aims to provide breakthrough technology for the conversion of CO2 to C3 fuels and chemical building blocks. This project gathers 11 partners from the steel, refining, chemical and engineering sectors, research and technology organisations and universities, working on the development of innovative catalyst process technologies that will fit the expectations to obtain value-added products. COZMOS technology will decrease CO2 emissions by 1.9 tons CO2 for every ton of C3 product produced, with expected reductions in CO2 emissions of 0.4 Mtons CO2/yr in 2030 and 2.2 Mtons CO2/year from 2034. It will design a flexible solution adaptable to local requirements and different industries. COZMOS technology will contribute to a circular economy and the replacement of fossil fuels, leading to a decrease in CO2 emissions and European dependence on fossil resources. Tüpraş has an important share of 776,375 € in this project, which received 4M€ subvention. Tüpras remains a small emitter regarding emissions of Soma and Aliaga clusters though (COZMOS, 2024). Petrochemical company Petkim that has higher CO2 emissions in those clusters, covering 12% of petrochemical product demand in Turkey, is currently involved in CO2Fokus EUfunded project aiming to produce DiMethylEther by direct use of CO2 hydrogenation in a single-step process, instead of going through methanol synthesis. Different market opportunities of DME are studied: as a fuel, LPG blend (Liquified Petroleum Gas), hydrogen carrier, aerosol, chemical solvent and power generation (CO2Fokus, 2024). The interest in renewable DME and in LPG blending, as well as the considerable LPG market are key drivers for the DME market in Turkey. Turkey has the largest LPG market in the world: in 2019, the Turkish LPG market meets an estimated 13% of the country’s total demand for automotive fuels and accounts for 76% of Turkey’s total LPG consumption (WLPGA, 2019). Additionally, LPG is a popular automotive fuel in the country (Autogas) and widely available at fuelling stations. From the produced 40 Mt of CO2 emission, 18.64 Mt/y of CO2 will be captured from which 5.59 Mt could be utilised in Med-1 scenario Table 3-30. Table 3-30 CO2 captured and utilised in the Med-1 Scenario 3.6.4 Main Advantages Mediterranean-1 (Med-1) value chain could enhance energy and environmental cooperation between Türkiye and Greece, fostering collaboration on regional initiatives. Capturing CO2 emissions from industrial regions like Aliağa and Soma can significantly reduce their negative impact on climate and the environment. This value chain could be a critical step towards Türkiye meeting its commitments under the Paris Agreement and aligning with the European Green Deal. Besides, the capacity of the selected storage site, Prinos Basin, is high enough for the optimal CO2 storage duration, and storing CO2 in this field can contribute to the local economy and the energy sector in the region. CLUSTER NAME TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS Mt/y NUMBER OF EMITTERS CO2 EMISSION CAPTURED, Mt/y CO2 FOR UTILIZATION (30% of CO2 captured), Mt/y Soma Cluster 17.84 4 8.57 2.57 Aliaga Cluster 22.17 12 10.07 3.02 Total Med-1 40.0 16 18.64 5.59 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 50 3.6.5 Main Challenges The Mediterranean-1 (Med-1) value chain includes technical, economical, and mainly the social and regulatory challenges. To start with, the inaccessibility of annual, sector-based CO2 emission data restricted the mapping of CO2 emission sources in Türkiye. Accordingly, instead of real emission data, the IPCC’s reference approaches (IPCC, 2006) were used in the calculation of CO2 emissions only from the selected industries, which might have led to uncertainties in total CO2 emissions. Besides, the Med-1 value chain includes two countries, both of which are in seismically active regions, which would create technical challenges particularly during the CO2 storage stage. From the economical point of view, the Med-1 value chain requires adaptation of new infrastructure such as pipelines or ships, which would result in significant investments to ensure the economic viability of the project. In the absence of carbon pricing mechanisms or carbon credits, covering these costs might be even more challenging. Last but foremost, the main challenge for Mediterranean-1 value chain can be mentioned as the international regulations. Neither Türkiye nor Greece is involved in London Protocol, which would lay an obstacle for the transportation and storage of CO2 in offshore formations. 3.7 Mediterranean 2 (Med-2): France – Spain CCUS offshore project The Mediterranean-2 CCUS scenario is a transboundary project from France to Spain planned for 20 years. It includes three clusters with 32 CO2 emitters from two countries and one storage site offshore Spain in DSA. The included industrial clusters are the Tarragona (5 emitters) and the Barcelona (9 emitters) clusters in Spain, and the Fos-Marseille cluster in France, annually producing 23.82 Mt CO2. The geological storage site Castellón is located offshore Tarragona in the Ebro Basin. The captured 9.77 Mt CO2 will be collected in the three clusters hubs, partly used depending on the viability of the CO2 use options and the remaining CO2 will be transported and stored in Castellón site. In the reference case, an onshore gathering hub at Tarragona port will collect the CO2 from the three clusters: CO2 from local Tarragona emitters, CO2 from Barcelona cluster sent by an offshore dense phase pipeline and CO2 from FosMarseille cluster (18 emitters) transported by ships. From the onshore gathering hub at Tarragona, a single dense phase offshore pipeline will send the collected CO2 to the subsea system including subsea injection wells around 60 km away (Shogenova et al, 2024). CO2 flow rates to be captured, transported and stored are limited in Mediterranean-2 project by the recently reported storage capacity of the Castellon site offshore Spain (200 Mt). Various possibilities for CO2 utilization are also being considered on the basis of CCU feasibility studies and projects in France and Spain. The CCUS scenario is mapped on Figure 3.6 and synthetized in Table 3-31. Table 3-31 Main technical parameters of Mediterranean-2 value chain. Cluster ID Involv ed countr ies Total CO2 emissi ons captur ed, Mt/y Emmiss ion sources Emiss ion cluste rs Stora ge sites Num ber of stora ge sites Total capac ity, Mt Distan ce from emissi ons to storag e, km Emiss ion cluste rs per countr y Stora ge sites per clust er Mediterra nean 2 Spain, France 9.77 32 3 Castel lón 1 200 48-470 2 in Spain, 1 in France 0.33 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 51 3.7.1 CO2 emitters In the Med-2 the approach to calculate CO2 captured emissions is shown in the Table 3-25. Three industrial clusters are considered for the Med-2 value chain. In Spain, the Tarragona cluster comprises 5 emitters with total captured emissions of 1.98 Mt/y. The Barcelona cluster gathers 9 emitters for a total amount of captured CO2 of 2.25 Mt/y. In France, the Fos-Marseille cluster is the biggest, with 18 emitters and 5.54 Mt/y of captured emissions. In the whole value chain, a total amount of 9.77 Mt would be captured annually (Table 3-32). Figure 3.6 Map of the Mediterranean-2 CCUS value chain. Table 3-32 CO2 emitters and emissions volumes included in three clusters of the Mediterranean-2 Value Chain Emitter ID Facility name Industry sector CO2 emissions 2022, Mt/y CO2 captured, Mt/y Fossil CO2 captured, Mt/y Biogenic CO2 captured, Mt/y S_ES_4 Repsol Refineria Tarragona Refineries 1.968 0.935 0.933 0.00095 S_ES_24 Repsol Quimica Chemicals 0.851 0.283 0.277 0.0058 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 52 S_ES_28 Dow Chemical Iberica (Dow Nord) Chemicals 0.985 0.327 0.327 0.0 S_ES_47 Tarragona Power Power 0.403 0.191 0.191 0.0 S_ES_77 Hyco (La Pobla De Mafument) Hydrogen 0.303 0.244 0.244 0.0 TOTAL for Tarragona cluster 4.510 1.981 1.974 0.007 E_ES_13 Central Termica De Cicle Combinat (Sant Adria De Besos - Grup 4) Power 0.648 0.308 0.308 0.0 E_ES_70 Central Termica De Cicle Combinat (Sant Adria De Besos - Grup 3) Power 0.585 0.278 0.278 0.0 E_ES_20 Cementos Molins Industrial (Sant Vicenc Dels Horts) Cement/Lime 0.934 0.577 0.507 0.07 E_ES_55 Fabrica De Montcada (Lafargeholcim Espana Sau) Cement/Lime 0.426 0.263 0.211 0.052 E_ES_80 Central Termica De Cicle Combinat (Sant Adria De Besos - Grup 5) Power 0.787 0.374 0.374 0.0 E_ES_103 Planta De Valoritzacio Energetica De Sant Adria De Besos Energy from waste 0.285 0.217 0.109 0.108 E_ES_130 Barcelona Cartonboard Paper and pulp 0.137 0.110 0.110 0.0 E_ES_144 Compania Espanola De Laminacion (Celsa 1-4) Iron & Steel 0.148 0.0352 0.0352 0.0 E_ES_232 Central Termica De Cicle Combinat (Port De Barcelona) Power 0.356 0.089 0.089 0.0 TOTAL for Barcelona cluster 4.306 2.251 2.022 0.229 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 53 E_FR_2 Arcelormittal Mediterranee Iron & Steel 6.447 1.531 1.531 0 E_FR_8 Naphtachimie Chemicals (other) 1.431 0.476 0.476 0 E_FR_10 Petroineos Manufacturing France Sas Refineries 1.117 0.531 0.531 0 E_FR_15 Basell Polyolefines France Sas (Berre) Chemicals 0.444 0.148 0.148 0 E_FR_17 Centre Production Thermique Ponteau - CCG de Martigues Power 1.446 0.687 0,687 0 E_FR_28 Esso Raffinage Sas Refineries 0.677 0.322 0,322 0 E_FR_55 Engie Thermique France - Cycofos Power 0.732 0.348 0,348 0 E_FR_62 Lafargeholcim Ciments Cement 0.368 0.227 0.210 0.017 E_FR_63 Evere Sas Energy from waste 0.42 0.319 0.129 0.190 E_FR_65 Centrale Thermique de COMBIGOLFE Power 0.574 0.273 0,273 0 E_FR_95 Total Raffinage France Refineries 0.199 0.095 0,095 0 E_FR_122 Cifc Cement/Lime 0.189 0.117 0.117 0 E_FR_132 Air Liquide France Industrie (Alfi) Hydrogen 0.134 0.089 0.089 0 E_FR_136 Lyondell Chimie France Sas (Fos) Chemicals (other) 0.205 0.068 0.068 0 E_FR_143 Chaux De Provence Sacam Cement/Lime 0.107 0.066 0.066 0 E_FR_145 Imerys Aluminates Sa Cement/Lime 0.157 0.097 0.097 0 E_FR_146 Kem One France Chemicals (other) 0.155 0.052 0.052 0 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 54 E_FR_151 Lyondell Basell Services France Sas Power 0.193 0.092 0.092 0 TOTAL for Fos-Marseille cluster 14.995 5.535 5.328 0.207 TOTAL 23.82 9.77 9.33 0.44 3.7.2 Storage site The storage site considered for Mediterranean-2 CCUS value chain is an offshore storage site near Tarragona in the Ebro basin (Spain) with a capacity over 200 Mt. The targeted reservoir is in the upper Miocene Castellón Sandstones, which runs from approximately 1600 m to 1900m, overlain by the Ebro clays (Pliocene). The storage site is detailed in Shogenova (2024). The reservoir’s parameters are summarized in Table 3-33. Seal thickness is extrapolated from well data (Salmonete-1 and Castellon B-13 (IGME, 2024)). Table 3-33 Reservoir parameters for Castellon storage site. Storage site parameters Units Country Spain Site name Castellón Onshore / offshore Offshore Reservoir Lithology Upper Miocene Castellón Sandstone Top depth m 1600 Thickness m 300-600 Reservoir pressure @1600m MPa 16 Reservoir temperature @1600m °C 74 Porosity % 14-20 Permeability D 0.010-0.500 Average Storage Capacity Mt >200 Cap rocks Ebro Clays Seal thickness m 900 3.7.3 CO2 use options in Med-2 In the Mediterranean-2 scenario, CCU facilities are located in the vicinity of the gathering station within each cluster, which is a good advantage for CCU deployment. Scenarios of CCU capacity deployment are presented in Table 3-34. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 55 Table 3-34 Scenarios of CCU capacity deployment in the Mediterranean-2 value chain Countr y Gathering station Capt ured CO2 from emitt ers, Mt/y Captu red CO2 from emitt ers for CCU, Mt/y Number of CCU installati ons per cluster Average capture capacity of CCU installation, kt/y Average Methanol capacity of CCU installation, kt/y Average Synthetic Jet Fuel capacity of CCU installation, kt/y Spain Tarragona 1.98 0.59 3 200 Assuming CO2 capacity comparable to the Green MEIGA project 144 56 Spain Barcelona 2.25 0.68 4 170 Assuming CO2 capacity comparable to the Green MEIGA project 123 47 France Marseille 5.54 1.66 7 238 Assuming CO2 capacity comparable to the eM-Rhône 171 67 Total 9.77 2.93 12 1779 890 Among funded by EC projects there are also Repsol projects such as the Ecoplanta in Morell (Tarragona) for the use of non-recyclable municipal waste to generate methanol – and ‘THynet’ also in Tarragona for the production of green hydrogen in the Tarragona refinery for local consumption. Among the projects awarded in the 2023 call are the ‘TarraCO2-Storage’ projects by Repsol in Tarragona (REVE, 2024). E-methanol and e-SAF were defined as the most promising products to be developed in this value chain for the needs of the different clusters. Table 3-35 Overview of possible CO2 for capture and utilisation for Med-2 Cluster name Total CO2 emissions, Mt/y Number of emitters CO2 emission captured (based on sector ref. table 3-11), Mt/y CO2 for utilization (30% of capture, Mt/year Tarragona 4.51 5 1.97 0.59 Barcelona 4.31 10 2.25 0.68 France 14.995 18 5.55 1.67 Total Med-2 23.82 33 9.77 2.93 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 56 Using the same methodology and assumptions than in part 3.1.3, 9,87 Mt/y of CO2 should be addressed by CCUS in Med-2. It is also assumed that 30% of captured CO2 will go to utilisation, meaning that 0,99 MT/y should be used in the Med-2. A full overview by cluster is shown in Table 3-35, with total CO2 emission, captured emission and CO2 for utilisation. 3.7.4 CO2 Transport An onshore gathering hub at Tarragona would collect the CO2 from the three clusters: CO2 from local Tarragona emitters, CO2 from Barcelona sent by an offshore dense phase pipeline and CO2 from Fos-Marseille transported by ships. From the onshore gathering hub at Tarragona, a single dense phase offshore pipeline will send the collected CO2 to the subsea system including subsea injection wells around 58 km away. Inside each cluster, a local pipeline network is designed to transport CO2 in gas phase from the various sources to a gathering facility. Transport modes for Med-2 value chain are detailed in Table 3-36. Table 3-36 Transport options for the clusters in the Mediterranean-2 From To Transpor t mode Phase Length, km Volume, Mt/y Tarragona emitters Tarragona gathering facility Pipeline Gas 15.684 1.981 Barcelona emitters Barcelona gathering facility Pipeline (2 parts) Gas 8.550 and 40.526 0.263 and 1.987 Fos-Marseille emitters Fos gathering facility Out of scope Fos-Marseille gathering facility Tarragona export hub Shipping Liquid 470 5.535 Barcelona gathering facility Tarragona export hub Offshore pipeline Dense 106 2.25 Tarragona export hub Offshore injection site Offshore pipeline Dense 48.1 9.77 3.7.5 Main Advantages The Med-2 CCUS value chain would enable significant reduction of the emissions in the selected clusters. Fos-Marseille cluster included in the CO2 value chain is more advanced in terms of development as the region was selected by E.U. as a Project of Common Interest (PCI) for CO2 export terminal. REPSOL EXPLORACIÓN has applied for an exploration permit for CO2 storage for the Castellón site (“TARRACO2”), paving the way for developing a CO2 storage offshore Spain. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 57 3.7.6 Main Challenges The announced storage capacity of 200 Mt would allow storing the value chain’s emissions during no more than 20 years. This could be challenging for the economic viability of the value chain. 3.8 Mediterranean 3 (Med-3): Southern France onshore CCUS project Figure 3.7 Scenario for capture, transport and storage for the Beaucaire value chain. The Mediterranean 3 value chain is a local-scale scenario in Southern France involving two emitters close to Beaucaire and a storage site located about 30 km away. The 2 industrial sites are a paper plant and a cement plant, emitting 1.17 Mt/y in total. The storage option is onshore saline aquifer site Haut d'Albaron, of storage capacity 34 Mt. The emission sources and the storage site can be connected by an onshore pipeline. Figure 3.7 locates emitters, storage and transport and presents the main features of the Beaucaire value chain. Table 3-37 Parameters of the Mediterranean 3 value chain. Cluster ID Involv ed countr ies Total CO2 emissi ons, Mt/y Emmis sion source s Emiss ion cluste rs Storage sites Num ber of stora ge sites Total capac ity, Mt Distan ce from emissi ons to storag e, km Emiss ion cluste rs per count ry Stora ge sites per clust er Mediterra nean 3 France 1.17 2 1 Onshore Haut d’Albaro n 1 34 32.638.5 1 1 3.8.1 CO2 Emitters Located 45 km northwest from Fos-sur-Mer, the Beaucaire cluster regroups only two emitters: a Ciments Calcia cement plant and a Fibre Excellence Tarascon paper plant, totalling CO2 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 64 cement industry that represents 18% of CO2 emissions of Athens cluster inside Med-4 value chain (RECODE, 2024). Eni company is also part of the Horizon Europe HERCCULES R&I project aiming to develop innovative CO2 capture technologies for the cement and waste-to-energy sectors. Goal is to set-up demonstration plant in two cement plants and one waste-to-energy plant located in Northern Italy and in Greece (HERCCULES, 2024). Using the same methodology and assumptions than in Table 3-25, 18,47 Mt/y of CO2 should be captured in Med-4. It is also assumed that 30% of captured CO2 will go to utilization, meaning that 5.54 Mt/y should be used in the Med-4. A full overview by cluster is shown in Table 3-44, with total CO2 emission, captured CO2 emission and CO2 for utilisation. Table 3-44 Overview of possible CO2 for capture and utilisation for Med-4 CLUSTER NAME TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS, Mt/y NUMBER OF EMITTERS CO2 EMISSION FOR CAPTURE, Mt/y CO2 FOR UTILIZATION (30% of capture, Mt/y Brindisi cluster 6.89 4 3.22 0.97 Taranto cluster 12.41 7 4.72 1.42 Catanzaro cluster 1.346 1 0.64 0.19 Messina cluster 3.818 3 1.81 0.54 Priolo cluster 7.214 9 3.36 1.01 Athens cluster 9.422 8 4.71 1.41 Total Med-4 41.1 32 18.47 5.54 3.9.4 CO2 transport Table 3-45 Transport distances (pipelines and ships) Value chain Emission cluster(s) Number of emitters Annual CO2 emissions (t/y) Storage site(s) Capacity (Mt) Distance along pipeline gate to onland storage site (km) Comment Souther n Italy Brindisi 4 6 891 000 Onshore Bradanic a S_IT8 344-1376 110 - Taranto 7 12 410 764 50 5 km to exiting pipe gate Cantanzar o 1 1 346 000 181 38.2 km distance to existing pipeline gate Messina 3 3 818 000 312 - Priolo Garallo 9 7 205 000 403 73,1 km distance to existing pipeline gate D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 65 Value chain Emission cluster(s) Number of emitters Annual CO2 emissions (t/y) Storage site(s) Capacity (Mt) Distance along pipeline gate to onland storage site (km) Comment TOTAL (Italy) 24 31 670 764 Total pipeline 513 km In addition: 116 km pipeline to connect to main pipeline gate Greece Attiki (close to Athen) 8 9 422 000 Total Ship transport (approx.900 km) From Athen to Brindisi with ship 3.9.5 Main advantages The main advantages for Med-4 are the CO2 storage site with high capacity and good caprocks, with many potential emitters hubs within a short distance, using pipelines from nearby industry clusters. Cross-border clusters from Greece and France can be included. Very good CO2 use options could be assumed from the industrial sectors represented including cement plants, iron and steel, refineries and chemical plants. 3.9.6 Main challenges Main challenges are represented by seismic risks in Italy and by the fact that the first permit for CO2 storage in Italy is given only for experimental storage in depleted oil and gas fields offshore (given now for the first stage injection in Ravenna depleted gas field) (INECP-Italy, 2024). Densely populated area and Natura 2000 within the storage site are additional challenges for onshore storage site. 3.10 Comparison of the Mediterranean Projects In the Mediterranean Region, Mediterranean-2, -3 and -4 value chains, which include correspondingly emission sources and storage sites in Spain (M-2), France (M-3), Italy and Greece (M-4), are assessed as more ready, while M-1, including CO2 emissions from Türkiye and CO2 storage in Greece as less ready, considering the regulatory risks. There is a lack of CCS regulations and CO2 capture and transport infrastructures in Türkiye. Türkiye and Greece are not Contracting Parties to the LP and are therefore not bound by its requirements for crossborder CO2 transport (i.e. declaration of provisional application and arrangement/agreement). The study closes with an overview of readiness and recommendations for advancing ready and less ready cases toward CCUS implementation. Some projects in both regions also have risks for the storage site area (external group 1). Italy is planning to implement an Amendment and provisional application to Article 6. However, the technical parameters of the storage site in France M-3 (Haut d’Albaron) are not qualified for the needed requirements (internal technical weakness). Technical risks for the area around the storage site (external group 1) in Italy and Greece: seismic risks should be checked for the storage site areas. Most countries have risks connected with the location of Natura 2000 areas close to the storage sites or intersected with storage sites. The Mediterranean-2 project was selected for the further techno-economic modelling and business case in the CCUS ZEN project, based on its relatively high level of readiness and impact on climate change in the Mediterranean Region. M-4 project has lower readiness and D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 66 M-1 project has the lowest readiness, and they both have seismic risks, despite higher impact on climate change compared to M-2 project (Table 2-1). 4 SWOT Analysis of Value Chains 4.1 Internal and External Groups of Factors Internal technical groups include 1) CO2 emission plants, 2) CO2 storage sites, 3) available and planned infrastructure, and 4) CO2 use options. An external technical group including 1) characteristics of the area around the storage site and non-technical external groups 1) social, 2) political development, 3) International and national regulations, 4) MRV (Monitoring Reporting and Verification), 5) Financial parameters, 6) Readiness of CCUS value chain - were analysed for opportunities and risks. Table 4-1. Internal and external groups of factors in SWOT analysis INTERNAL GROUP Strength and Weakness EXTERNAL GROUP Opportunities and Threats (Risks) Technical Technical Non-technical CO2 emission plants Social Political development CO2 storage sites Area around the storage site Regulatory Infrastructure (available and planned) MRV (Monitoring Reporting and Verification) CO2 use options Financial 4.2 Internal Factors Assessment for two regions Among the main strengths of the technical group (1) we considered the piloting/planning of CO2 capture, CO2 use options, and hydrogen production. Porosity and permeability of the reservoir rocks, quality of the cap rock, CO2 storage capacity and Storage Readiness Level (SRL) (Akhurst, et al, 2021), were analysed in the group (2) CO2 storage sites. Availability of the natural gas pipelines, total CO2 emissions per distance unit, wells in operation, availability of the offshore infrastructure and planned PCI project were parameters analysed in the group (3) infrastructure. The parameters analysed in the technical group (4): CO2 use projects in operation, development or R&D phase, amount of CO2 which could be used in the cluster and possible revenues. We created the hierarchy of the analysis on internal assessment (Table 4-2), which already includes quantitative parameters. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 67 Table 4-2 . Hierarchy of analysis on internal assessment.in SWOT analysis SWOT SWOT SWOT group Aspects factors Polarity Internal assessment CO2 emission plants (I1) Number of countries (I2) Number of clusters (I3) Number of plants (I4) Fossil CO2 emissions produced (Mt/y) + + + + (I5) Bio CO2 emissions produced (Mt/y) (I6) Total CO2 emissions produced (Mt/y) (I7) Captured CO2 emissions (Mt/y) (I8) Number of plants planed CO2 capture + + + (I9) Number of plants planning H2 production + (I10) Number of storage sites (I11) Porosity of the reservoir rocks (average, decimal) + (I12) Permeability of the reservoir rocks (average, Md) + CO2 storage sites (I13) Well injectivity (Mt/y) + (I14) Thickness of primary cap rocks, m + (I15) CO2 storage capacity (total, Mt) + (I16) Storage Readiness Level (SRL) (1-9) + (I17) Transport distance to storage site (min, km) - CO2 transport (I18) Transport distance to storage site (max, km) - (I19) Transport distance to storage site total (km) + Infrastructure (I20) Number of wells in operation + (I21) Number of old abandoned wells - (I22) Number of planned PCI projects + (I23) Number of CO2 use projects in operation, or R&D + CO2 use options (I24) Longevity of CO2 use products (years) + (I25) Bio-CO2 to be used (Mt) + Table 4-3. Internal assessment score in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions Internal assesment key factors U nit Pola -rity B1 B2 B3 B4 BaltTotal/ Avg* M1 M2 M3 M4 MedTotal/ Avg* I1 Number of countries N + 2 3 3 1 9/ 2.3 2 2 1 2 7/ 1.8 I2 Number of clusters N + 3 9 4 4 20/5 2 3 1 6 12/3 I3 Number of plants N + 6 33 16 11 67/17 16 32 2 32 82/21 I4 Fossil CO2 emissions produced Mt /y + 4.25 12.08 4.55 8.03 28.9/ 7.2 40 22.75 0.59 6 41. 1 62.8/ 31.4 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 68 I5 Bio CO2 emissions produced Mt /y + 0 8.06 1.36 0.16 9.6/2.4 0 1.07 0.57 2 0 1.6/ 0.6 I6 Total CO2 emissions produced Mt /y + 4.25 22.66 5.91 8.19 41.2/ 10.3 40 23.82 1.17 41.1 106/ 26.5 I7 Captured annual CO2 emissions Mt /y + 4.04 20.14 5.62 7.78 37.6/ 9.4 18.6 4 9.77 0.83 3 18.4 7 47.7/ 11.93 I8 N. of plants planning CO2 capture N + 4 18 9 3 34/ 8.5 0 22 0 0 23/ 5.5 I9 No. of plants planning hydrogen production or in operation N + 2 2 2 4 10/2.5 0 2 0 0 2/ 0.7 I1 0 Number of storage sites N - -3 -8 -3 -2 16/4 -1 -1 -1 -1 4/1 I1 1 Porosity of the reservoir rocks De ci m al + 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.18 /0.2 0.2 0.18 0.15 0.25 /0.22 I1 2 Permeability of reservoir rocks m D + 530 400 325 350 /401 50 500 300 300 /217 I1 3 Well injectivity Mt /y + 1 0.41 0.35 0.8 /0.64 0.5 1.09 0.8 0.8 /0.8 I1 4 Thickness of primary cap rocks m + 48.7 150 180 150 /132 800* 900* 115 71 /329 I1 5 CO2 storage capacity Mt + 402.6 928 657 381 2369/ 592 135 0 200 34 860 2444/ 611 I1 6 Storage Readiness Level (SRL) N + 3.33 3 3 2 11.3/2. 83 1 2 2 2 7/1.7 5 I1 7 Transport distance to storage site (min) k m - -10 -5 -5 -4.2 /6.05 -120 -48 -32.6 -50 /62.7 I1 8 Transport distance to storage site (max) km - -145 -750 -200 - 38.2 1133/2 83.3 -360 -470 -38.5 -900 /442 I1 9 Transport distance to storage site (total) km - -283 -2830 -460 -108 3681/ 920.3 - 649, 6 -520 -38.5 - 141 3 2621. 4/657 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 69 I2 0 N of wells in operation N + 6 18 19 0 43/10. 8 3 0 0 0 3/0.8 I2 1 N of abandoned old wells N - -21 -6 -2 -5 34/8.5 -0 -12 -5 -1 18/4. 5 I2 2 N of planned PCI projects N + 1 2 1 1 5/1.25 1 1 0 0 2/0.5 I2 3 N of CO2 use projects in operation, R&D N + 1 8 3 1 13/3.3 2 3 0 0 5/1.3 I2 4 Longevity of CO2 use products Ye ars + 1 1 1 1 /1 1 1 1 1 /1 I2 5 Bio-CO2 to be used Mt + 0.4 6.05 0.56 0.78 7.8/2.0 5.59 2.93 0.25 5.5 4 14.3/ 2.9 Total/Avg* -Total and Average numbers for the region are calculated if suitable. If Total value is not suitable, then only Average is shown as /Average. 4.3 External Factors Assessment in two regions The external technical risks analysed for the (1) storage site area: storage site located in the densely populated area, storage site area belonging to landlords, storage site located in seismic risk area, or in Natura 2000 area/other protected area. Table 4-4 External technical factors and their location EXTERNAL FACTORS Location Storage site located in the densely populated area (onshore): Low – 1, medium – 2–3, high – 5 Onshore Storage site area belonging to landlords (Yes - 5, No -1) Onshore Storage site located in seismic risk area (no seismic risk – 1, low seismic risk – 2, seismic risk in the neighbouring region – 3, average seismic risk – 4, high seismic risk - 5 Onshore and offshore Storage site located in Natura 2000 area/other protected area (100% located in the protected area - 5, 50% located in the protected area -4, 25% -3, 10% -2, not located -1) Onshore and offshore Transport routes is going through Natura 2000 area/other protected area (100% located in the protected area - 5, 50% located in the protected area -4, 25% -3, 10% -2, not located -1) Onshore and offshore In the non-technical groups social and regulatory (2, 3) the analysed factors were: public acceptance, political development, status under the London Protocol and Amendment to Article 6, application of the EU CCS Directive, national permission for CO2 storage. For MRV and financial groups (4, 5) the following parameters were analysed: MRV and accounting readiness, and availability of the government financial support along the value chain. D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 70 We created the hierarchy of the analysis on external assessment (Table 4-5), where the qualitative and quantitative parameters should be assigned from 1 to 5. Table 4-5. Factors considered in the non-technical aspects of the external group of SWOT analysis Group Aspects Factors Polarity External assessment Public acceptance (E1) Level of public acceptance (low - 1, medium – 3, high - 5 + Political development (E2) Favourable – 4–5, Business as usual – 2–3, Unfavourable – 1 + International Regulations (E3) London Protocol (LP): Non member - 1, Member of London Convention – 2, Member of LP – 3, Amendment to Article 6 implemented – 4, Provisional Application of Article 6 to LP - 5 + National regulations (E4) EU CCS Directive implemented: CO2 storage permitted for research – 1; CO2 storage: permitted offshore – 3, permitted onshore – 3, permitted onshore and offshore – 5 + MRV (Monitoring Reporting and Verification) (E5) MRV Readiness: Low – 1, Medium – 3, High – 5 + (E6) Accounting Readiness: Low – 1, Medium – 3, High-5 + Business Model (E7) Governmental financial support for CCUS projects: Not available – 1, available, but low – 2, available but could be higher – 3, available significantly – 5 Readiness of CCUS value chain (E8) Value chain readiness: Developing Capture –1, Capture available –2, Developing Capture & Transport – 2, Capture and transport available – 4, Developing Capture, transport and storage – 3, Capture, transport and storage available – 5, Capture in development, storage is available – 3, + Interaction with other decarbonization technologies (E9) CCUS in Industrial strategy/plan: Yes – 5, No – 2, No strategy/plan – 1 + Table 4-6. Factors considered in the technical aspects (the area around the storage site) of the external group of SWOT analysis Group Aspects Factors Polarity Density of population (E10) Storage site located in the densely populated area Low – 1, medium – 3, high – 5 External assessment Storage site ownership (E11) Storage site area belonging to landlords: Yes – 5, No – 1 – Seismicity (E12) Storage site located in seismic risk area: no seismic risk – 1, low seismic risk – 2, seismic risk in the neighbouring region – 3, average seismic risk – 4, high seismic risk – 5 – Protected areas (E13) Storage site located in Natura 2000 area/other protected area: 100% located in the protected area – 5, 50% – 4, 25% – 3, 10% – 2, no located – 1 – (E14) Transport routes are going through Natura 2000 area/other protected area: 100% located in the protected area – 5, 50% – 4, 25% – 3, 10% – 2, not located – 1 – D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 71 Table 4-7. External assessment score in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions External assessment key factors Polarity Non-technical factors B1 B2 B3 B4 BAv g M1 M2 M3 M4 MAv g E1 (E1) Level of public acceptance (low - 1, medium – 3, high - 5 + 3 3 3 1 2.5 3 3 1 1 2 E2 (E2) Favourable – 4–5, Business as usual – 2–3, Unfavourable – 1 + 2 4 4 3 3.2 5 2 3 3 1 2.2 5 E3 (E3) London Protocol (LP): Non member - 1, Member of London Convention – 2, Member of LP – 3, Amendment to Article 6 implemented – 4, Provisional Application of Article 6 to LP – 5 + NA 4.3 4.3 NA 4.3 1.5 3 NA 2.5 2.3 3 E4 (E4) EU CCS Directive implemented: CO2 storage permitted for research – 1; CO2 storage: permitted offshore – 3, permitted onshore – 3, permitted onshore and offshore with limitations – 4, permitted onshore and offshore - 5 1 5 5 3 3.5 4 5 5 4 4.5 E5 (E5) MRV Readiness: Low – 1, Medium – 3, High – 5 + 1 5 5 1 3 1 1 3 1 1.5 E6 (E6) Accounting Readiness: Low – 1, Medium – 3, High-5 + 1 5 5 1 3 1 3 3 3 2.5 E7 (E7) Governmental financial support for CCUS projects: Not available – 1, available, but low – 2, available but could be higher – 3, available significantly – 5 + 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1.5 E8 (E8) Value chain readiness: Developing Capture –1, Capture available –2, Developing Capture & Transport – 2, Development Capture and Storage-2, Capture and transport available – 4, Developing Capture, transport and storage – 3, Capture, transport and storage available – 5, Capture in development, storage is available – 3, + 1 3 3 2 2.2 5 1.5 4 3 3 2.8 8 E9 (E9) CCUS in Industrial strategy/plan: Yes – 5, No – 2, No strategy/plan – 1 + 1 3.7 3.7 1 2.3 5 3.5 3.5 2 5 3.5 D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 72 Technical factors B1 B2 B3 B4 BAv g M1 M2 M3 M4 MAv g E1 0 Storage site located in the densely populated area (onshore): Low – 1, medium – 2–3, high – 5 - -2 -3 -3 -2 -2.5 NA NA -2 -1 -1.5 E1 1 Storage site area belonging to landlords (Yes - 5, No -1) - -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 NA NA -1 -4 -2.5 E1 2 Storage site located in seismic risk area (no seismic risk – 1, low seismic risk – 2, seismic risk in the neighbouring region – 3, average seismic risk – 4, high seismic risk - 5 - -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -3 -2 -1 -2 -2 E1 3 Storage site located in Natura 2000 area/other protected area (100% located in the protected area - 5, 50% located in the protected area -4, 25% -3, 10% -2, not located -1) - -2 -1 -3 -1 - 1.7 5 -3 -5 -5 -2 - 3.7 5 E1 4 Transport routes is going through Natura 2000 area/other protected area (100% located in the protected area - 5, 50% located in the protected area -4, 25% -3, 10% -2, not located -1) - -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -4 -1 - 2.2 5 4.4 Integration of technical and nontechnical factors The most important factors influencing CCUS value chains in terms of SWOT analysis are developed based on technical and nontechnical parameters organised as internal and external SWOT factors and integrated in the Table 4-8. Table 4-8 The most important factors influencing CCUS value chains in terms of SWOT analysis STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES INTERNAL • International cooperation (I-1) • High impact on climate change (I-4 - I-7) • Cooperation with renewables and energy storage (I-9) • Sufficient storage capacity justified by injection tests (I-11, I-15) • Sufficient injectivity (I12-I13) • Safety of storage site justfied by geological data or experience (I14, I21) • CO2 storage site exploration license is executed and storage site explored • CO2 Storage licences are available • CCUS PCI projects under development (I22) • Bio CO2 is available for utilization and storage (I-25) • CO2 use projects (in development or operation) (I-23) • Possibility to reuse infrastructure (I-20) • Low level of national cooperation in clusters (I-2, I-3) • Low readiness of emitters (I-8) • Scarse geological data about the storage site • Theoretical storage capacity • Low readiness of the storage sites (I16) • High risk of CO2 leakage • Distant location from emiters to storage site (I7-I9) • Bio CO2 is not yet reported (I-25) • CO2 use options are not developed or projects stoped caused by high costs of production D.3.3 A generic framework for selection of the most promising CCUS value chains 73 OPPORTUNITIES THREATS EXTERNAL • Political support of CCUS (E-2) • International and national CCS regulations implemented (E-3) • CO2 storage is permitted onshore and offshore (E4) • Governmental financial support is available (E7) • CO2 capture, transport and storage are under development (E-8) • CCUS included in the national industrial strategy plans (E-9) • MRV and accounting readiness are high • Low public acceptance (E-1, E-10) • CCUS is not included in NECP (National Energy and Climate plans) • Any CO2 injections banned • Regional conventions do not include CCS regulations, or banning CO2 injection • CO2 leakage to other countries (energy is exported from other countries, while national plants are closed, and CCS is not applied). • Landlords refuse to cooperate (E-11) • Seismic risks in southern countries E12) • Location of storage sites and transport corridors in the protected areas (E12-14) 5 Discussion A generic framework for the selection of the most prospective CCUS value chains at the very early stage of their development, based on the high-level screening methodology established in WP1 and integrated with WP2 analyses, is presented in this report. A semi-quantitative SWOT analyses, based on internal technical parameters and external technical and non-technical parameters was performed for 8 proposed in D1.2 value chains in two regions. The most important SWOT factors influencing CCUS value chains was proposed in terms of SWOT analysis. A framework for quantitative SWOT analyses were developed, where the concept of MultipleAttribute Decision Making (MADM), using a multi-layer scheme to simplify complicated problems could be applied. Weights of key factors can be calculated by using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). From 8 CCUS value chains selected in D1.2 for further analysis in WP3, two the most promising projects were selected for the further techno-economic modelling and business case in the WP4 – Baltic-2 in the Baltic Sea Region, and Med-2 in the Mediterranean Sea Region. The Baltic-2 projects was selected, based on its highest impact on climate change and the highest level of readiness in the Baltic Region, including 2 PCI projects ongoing, the highest level of development of CO2 use options, the highest national and international regulatory readiness for CO2 storage in Denmark and started CO2 injections in two DOFs. However, among weakness of this value chain could be mentioned the highest total transport distance and a relatively high number of storage sites (8), which can cause the increase in transport and storage costs compared to the closer located and larger storage sites. The Baltic-1 (Latvia and Lithuania) and Baltic-4 (Northern Poland) value chains are categorised as less ready due to regulatory risks associated with CO2 storage onshore in Latvia and Poland. Despite the planned changes in the CCS regulations and other available technical strengths, these regulatory changes in Latvia and Poland may take additional time, and these risks should be seriously considered. Regulatory situation is more advanced in Poland, where CO2 storage offshore is already permitted at national level and the law to permit onshore storage is under development.