SDPI Research and News Bulletin
Vol. 15, No. 1 (January-March, 2008)

Carbon Capture and the Carbon Inventory in Pakistan

Ali Shahrukh Pracha and Noreen Athar Rana
noreen@sdpi.org

Carbon Capture and Storage

The ultimate objective of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which Pakistan is a signatory, is the achievement of a stabilized world atmospheric ‘concentration of greenhouse gases’ (GHGs) that would “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (UNFCCC, 1992). Carbon dioxide leads GHG emissions as the most significant human contribution, with the emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning named by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001 c) as the “dominant influence on the trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 21st century.”

There are several climate-change mitigation options available in the quest to rein in CO2 emissions. These include (i) reducing energy consumption through improvements to efficiency or utilization; (ii) switching to less carbon-intensive fuels; (iii) increasing the use of near-zero-carbon energy alternatives, such as renewable energy sources or nuclear energy; (iv) sequestering CO2 by enhancing absorption through biological sinks such as forests and soil; and, finally, capturing and storing CO2 chemically or physically.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) presents a somewhat radical approach in the effort to effect drastic reductions in CO2 emission levels, standing in where other strategies have been deemed inadequate. It is being considered as an option in the portfolio of mitigation actions for stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations. While its widespread application would depend on its potential, costs, technical maturity, diffusion, regulatory considerations, and public/environmental concerns, among other things, CSS has the potential to reduce overall mitigation costs and to allow flexibility in achieving GHG reductions.

The CCS process involves the trapping, isolation, and fixation of flue gases from various stationary industrial and energy-related point sources of CO2. These include large fossil fuel or biomass energy facilities, natural gas production sites, synthetic fuel plants, fossil fuel-based hydrogen production plants, and major CO2-emitting industries such as hydrogen, ammonia, iron, steel, and cement production. The CO2 is then transported to storage facilities, industrially fixated into inorganic carbonates, or injected into natural reservoirs – ocean water columns/deep seafloor, deep geological formations such as saline aquifers, broad, un-minable coal seams, and depleted oil and gas fields - for long-term isolation from the atmosphere.

The Pakistan Context

In Pakistan, the analysis of CCS technology implementation is complicated by the difficulty of calculating CCS costs in the absence of benchmarks. Costs vary depending, on the one hand, on plant design and operation factors such as plant size, net efficiency, fuel properties and load factors, and, on the other, on economic and financial factors such as fuel costs, interest rates, and plant lifetime (IPCC, 2005). Net reduction of emissions to the atmosphere due to CCS would depend on the proportion of CO2 that is captured, compared with the increased CO2 production resulting indirectly from additional energy expenditures required for capture, transport and storage, while accounting for leakage and retention over the long term.

The development and application of methods to estimate and report the quantities in which emissions of CO2 are reduced, avoided and/or removed from the atmosphere is an important aspect of CCS. This involves the accurate estimation and reporting of emissions for national greenhouse gas inventories. Furthermore, the prospect of realizing the CCS sequestration process in Pakistan is predicated on identifying emissions sites. This requires updating the International Energy Agency’s Geographic Information System (GIS) inventories and database with information on the locations of carbon-emitting plants and factories. The most recent activity in GHG inventories has involved collecting carbon emissions figures on a plant- and factory-wise basis. It is by no means an easy task, given the absence of this kind of record-keeping in Pakistan, where even plant production figures, which can be used to derive emissions estimates, are often impossible to procure.

Carbon inventory and monitoring plans are designed to quantify changes in key carbon pools in and around the project areas. The data from such inventory and monitoring activities are used to measure the efficacy of climate action projects. The generation of a thorough inventory is not only necessary to ensure that carbon offsets are real, measurable and verifiable, but, when used in combination with emissions mapping, useful in locating site targets for climate action projects like CCS. The International Energy Agency is currently involved in collecting and compiling these records on the location of each emissions-producing plant in a GIS to produce an accurate emissions map. The sectors covered in the Pakistan database include ammonia, cement, ethanol, iron and steel, power and oil refineries. Below, we explore the breakdown of emissions estimates for these sectors, and then organize this information to sketch an emissions map for Pakistan.

An Inventory of Emissions-Producing Sectors

Ammonia: Urea, the most commonly produced fertilizer in Pakistan, is manufactured from ammonia by a factor of 34 molecules of ammonia to 60 molecules of urea. Thus the CO2 emissions estimate derived of this relationship is 0.74 Kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) per Kg of ammonia used in production. See table 1 below.

Table 1: Types of fertilizer produced in Pakistan (2004)

Company name	City	Urea	DAP	MAP	CAN	AS	NP	SSP 16%	SSP 18%	NPK
Dawood Hercules	Near Sheikhupura	x	Imported
Engro	Dist. Daharki, Ghotki	x	Imported
Engro	Port Qasim Karachi		Imported	Imported						x
NFC Pak-Arab	Multan	x			x
NFC Pak-American	Iskanderabad, Daudkhel	x	Imported			x
NFC Pak-China		NoProd	Imported
NFC Lyallpur Chemicals & Fertilizers (Pvt.) Ltd.	Faisalabad		Imported						NoProd
NFC Lyall Chemicals & Fertilizer (Pvt.) Ltd.	Jaranwalla		Imported						x
NFC Hazara Phosphate Fertilizers (Pvt.) Ltd.	Haripur		Imported					NoProd	x
FFC	Goth Machhi, dist. Rahim Yar Khan	x	x
FFC	Mirpur Mathelo, Dist. Ghotki	NoProd
FFC-Jordan Fertilizer Co. Ltd.		x	x
FFBL	Bin-Qasim Karachi	x	x

DAP: Diammonium Phosphate; MAP: Monoammonium Phosphate, CAN: Calcium Ammonium Nitrate; AS: Ammonium Sulphate; NP: Nitrogen Phosphate; SSP: Single Super Phosphate, NPK: Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorous.
NoProd: No production in 2004

Cement: With over 20 plants in operation at any given time, Pakistan’s cement industry produces 15.15 million tonnes (MT) of Portland cement a year (Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 2006). The production of cement involves heating limestone and other calcium-rich materials in a process called ‘calcination’ to produce lime and CO2. The lime is combined with silica-containing materials in the form of clays or shales, to form dicalcium and tricalcium silicates. Known as ‘clinker’, this compound is ground into a fine powder and combined with gypsum to produce cement (Revised 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). The IPCC’s standard emissions factor puts the final emissions estimates for clinker at 0.5071 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of clinker.

Ethanol: Pakistan operates 17 distilleries with capacities ranging from 3.5 to 42 million liters a year. Using an emission factor of 0.799 Gigagrams (Gg) of CO2 per million liters, we can conclude that Pakistan’s distilleries are fairly small-scale operations, with individual CO2 emissions not exceeding 34 Gg per year.

Iron and steel: Pakistan’s only steel mill that manufactures iron products from iron ore is the Pakistan Steel Mills in Karachi. Its products include billets, rolled products, and galvanized products. The emissions factor used is 1.27 Kg of CO2 per Kg of steel produced. Table 2 below illustrates the steel industry’s emissions from 2005-2006

Table 2: Total steel industry emissions (2005–2006)

Steel	industry Year	No. of facilities*	Total production	Emissions factor (Kg CO2/Kg steel)	CO2 emissions (Kt)
Steel melting	July ‘05–Nov ‘06	168	1,416,647	1.27	1,799,141.69
Steel re-rolling	July ‘05–Nov ‘06	300	1,378,570	1.27	1,750,783.90

* Estimated figure
Source: (production figures and number of facilities): Ministry of Industries and Production (MoIP) 2007

Power: The technology generally utilized in Pakistan’s power plants is steam turbo-generators as well as simple and combined gas turbines. The majority of fossil fuel-fired power plants in Pakistan utilize natural gas – the cleanest of all fossil fuels. Oil is a close second, and coal is used in only one location (the fluidised bed combustion [FBC] plant in Lakhra in District Dadu). The emission factors for natural gas, oil, and coal are 400, 500, and 1,000 Kg CO2 per Gigawatt hour (Kg CO2/GWh) respectively.

Refineries: Pakistan’s six oil refineries have varying capacities (see Figure 1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARL: Attock Refinery Limited; DRL: Dhodak Refinery Ltd.; NRL: National Refinery Ltd.; MCR: Mid-Country Refinery; PRL: Pakistan Refinery Ltd.

Emissions mapping

Table 4 shows the estimated figures for CO2 emissions by province, city and district. It must be noted that these figures are based on immobile sources of CO2 that have been collected for the sectors included in this database only (ammonia, cement, ethanol, steel, power, and refineries). As the table shows, Sindh, with its large industrial base, is responsible for 11,040.5 MT of CO2. The Punjab follows at 10,133.7 MT. Third in line is Balochistan at 3,165.9 MT, due for the most part to the turbine power station in Dera Murad Jamali. NWFP accounts for 1.31 million tonnes of CO2 and the Federal Capital Territory for 0.3 million tonnes.

Table 4: Estimated CO2 emissions of selected sectors

Province	City/district	Emissions from	Approx. emissions (Kt)	Provincial total (Million Tonnes of CO2)
Balochistan	Dera Murad Jamali	Power	1,677,810.000	3,165.9
	Hub	Power	1,059,000.000
	Panjgur	Power	985.000
	Pasni	Power	930.000
	Quetta	Power	427,026.000
	Sub Tehsil Gadani, District Lasbella	Refineries	117.599
Sindh	Dhabeji, Deh Dhando Dhabeji	Cement	380.325	11,040.5
	Dist. Dadu	Power	1,934,610.000
	Ghotki	Ammonia	358.881
	Hyderabad	Power, cement	173.863
	Kalo Kahar, Nooriabad	Cement	484.160
	Karachi	Power, cement, ethanol, refineries, ammonia, iron and steel	4,747,123.875
	Kashmore, Dist. Jacobabad	Power	3,517,014.000
	Kotri	Power	322,008.000
	Mirpur Mathelo, District Ghotki	Ammonia	295.210
	Sakkran. Hub Chowki, Lasbela District	Cement	365.112
	Sukkur	Power, cement	517,568.633
	Thatta	Cement	152.130
Punjab	Babri Banda	Cement	273.834	10,133.7
	Chenki	Cement	304.260
	Dist. Chakwal	Cement	273.834
	Dist. Dera Gazi Khan	Cement, refineries	858.941
	Dist. Muzaffargarh	Power, refineries	3,384,222.029
	Faisalabad	Power, ethanol, ammonia	544,214.289
	Farouka	Power	297,585.000
	Goth Machhi, District Rahimyar Khan	Ammonia	588.818
	Iskanderabad, Dist. Mianwali	Cement, ammonia	871.167
	Jhang	Ethanol	31.960
	Kabirwalla	Power	433,580.000
	Kot Addu	Power	3,477,120.000
	Lahore	Power, cement, ethanol	651,901.121
	Morgah, Rawalpindi	Refineries	412.904
	Multan	Ammonia	51.400
	Sheikhupura area	Ammonia	220.132
	Nizampur	Cement	608.520
	Pind Dadan Khan	Cement	243.408
	Piranghaib, near Multan	Power	176,980.000
	Sidhnai Barrage	Power	1,158,620.000
	Tehsil Fateh Jang, District Attock	Power, cement	4,312.390
	Wah	Cement	456.390
NWFP	Haripur Dist.	Cement, ammonia	273.834	1.31
	Mardan	Ethanol	12.004
	Nowshera	Cement	380.325
	Peshawar	Ethanol	4.907
	Pezu, Dist. Lakki Marwat	Cement	637.497
Fed. Territory	Sangjani, District Islamabad	Cement	304.260	0.3

 

CCS Costs in the Pakistan Context

The individual technological components are already commercially available - the oil extraction industry has been using the technologies to inject CO2 into deep oil wells to enhance the upward flow of oil, and gas purification plants have employed them in removing CO2 from natural gas. However, methodized application of this technology to the CCS process is still very much in its infancy. In the current state of development the cost of the synchronized operation of these technologies for capture, transportation, and storage, would increase the cost of electricity for power plants by 20 to 60% (Cook and Zakkour, undated). Experts estimate that it will be another 10 to 15 years before such technology comes into mainstream use in Europe and the US.

Capture costs are comparable to the costs of removing CO2 from natural gas. One estimate from a well-known oil company in Pakistan puts this at USD 10.2 million. This includes a second-hand refurbished amine plant, construction costs, start-up materials, survey, and engineering costs. According to oil experts, a brand new amine plant could itself typically cost USD 10 million. Table 5 shows cost estimates for CCS systems as calculated by the IPCC.

Table 5: Cost ranges for CCS systems (power plants and industrial facilities)

CCS system components	Cost range	Remarks
Capture from a coal-or gas-fired power plant	15–75 USD/tCO2 net captured	Net costs of captured CO2, compared to the same plant without capture.
Capture from hydrogen and ammonia production or gas processing	5–55 USD/tCO2 net captured	Applies to high-purity sources requiring simple drying and compression.
Capture from other industrial sources	25–115 USD/tCO2 net captured	Range reflects use of a number of different technologies and fuels.
Transportation	1–8 USD/tCO2 transported	Per 250 km pipeline or shipping for mass flow rates of 5 (high end) to 40 (low end) MtCO2 yr-1.
Geological storage	0.5–8 USD/tCO2 net injected	Excluding potential revenues from EOR or ECBM.
Geological storage: monitoring and verification	0.1–0.3 USD/tCO2 injected	This covers pre-injection, injection, and post-injection monitoring, and depends on the regulatory requirements.
Mineral carbonation	50–100 USD/tCO2 net mineralized	Range for the best case studied. Includes additional energy use for carbonation.

Natural gas pipelines can be used as benchmarks for cost comparisons with CO2 transportation. Natural gas is usually transported at 700–800 pounds per square inch (psi) in carbon steel pipes. According to Heddle et al (2003), CO2-carrying pipes must be able to withstand pressures of up to 2,175.56 psi. However, because CO2 is corrosive, carbon steel pipes cannot be used. Table 6 shows the costs, taken from a Pakistani steel pipe company. In addition to the cost of piping, ‘booster compressors’ (pumping devices) of at least 1,500 horsepower will be required every 100–150 Km to ensure gas flow. These typically cost about USD 1 million each.

Table 6: CO2 transport costs – on-shore pipelines

Pipeline diameter (inches)	8	12	16	24
Pipeline thickness (inches)	0.25	0.312	0.406	0.562
Capital costs (USD/Km)*	56,400	95,550	140,533.33	265,066.67

* Conversion to USD at rate: USD 1 = PKR 60
Note: Capital costs do not include sales tax

Similarly, injection and storage costs can be likened to the costs incurred in CO2 injection in oil fields. In Pakistan, water injection is used in place of this technology to harness oil from tighter geological formations. Production engineers at the Orient Petroleum International Inc (OPII) cite experience with water injection for both water disposal and oil enhancement purposes. Discussions with various engineers in Pakistan have produced cost figures for water injection for the purposes of water disposal (rather than for water enhanced oil flow) amounting to approximately USD 1 million, with an additional USD 2 million required for a suitable compressor of at least 1,500 horsepower. Table 7 below demonstrates the cost breakdown for a 5 Km transport line from the Naimat Basal oilfield to the depleted Naimat North field, where the injection takes place. It must be noted, however, that the cost of the wellhead was not included, because one already existed at the site of water injection and disposal in the case study from which these costs have been derived. Additionally, these costs do not reflect CO2 injection costs with a particularly high degree of accuracy, because injected water need not be ‘sealed’, as leakage is not usually the problem it would be in the case of injected CO2.

Table 7: Naimat Basal produced water disposal at Naimat North

	Description		Cost (USD)	Cost (USD)
1	Water holding tank 500 BBLS (2 each)			60,000
2	Motor driven pumps (2 each)			140,000
3	Wellhead cartridge filter			40,000
4	Misc material (piping, fittings, valves, electrical and inst. Etc)			60,000
5	Chemical injection skid			40,000
6	Freight/transportation/duties			36,000
7	Civil, mechanical electrical and instrumentation construction works			100,000
8	Generator, area lighting for Naimat North well location			25,000
9	Facility engineering design services			25,000
10	Water disposal pipeline (4-inch diameter, 0.338 inch thickness) from Naimat Basal to Naimat North (5 Km)			414,000
	i	Line pipe material cost including transportation to site	135,000
	ii	Coating cost	39,000
	iii	Fittings, valves, misc tie-ins material	90,000
	iv	Cathodic protection system design/installation for pipeline	13,000
	v	Pipeline construction	100,000
	vi	Land leasing and crop compensation	29,000
	vii	Survey, detailed engineering, EIA, permissions	8,000
11	OPII management			50,000
Total				990,000

 

Conclusions

At present, it is too early in the exploitation of CCS technology to make confident predictions about its value to Pakistan’s efforts in climate-change mitigation. Nevertheless, the CCS process is an innovative approach to emissions mitigation, deserving of further research and study at the international and national levels, on account of its potential to reduce overall mitigation costs and the flexibility it offers in achieving GHG reductions. In the meantime, a thorough update of the current national carbon inventory in Pakistan will help to identify the target sites of emissions productions and to focus the implementation of options such as CCS, thereby directing local efforts to addressing the global problem of climate change.

References

Adam, David. 16 June 2005. How will carbon capture and storage work? The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12977,1506967,00.html

Anderson, Soren and Newell, Richard. 2003. Prospects for carbon capture and storage technologies. Washington DC: Resources For the Future (RFF).

APEC drinking water systems. Undated. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-education2/75-carbon-dioxide.htm

Climate Change Corp.com. 6 March 2007. Carbon capture – geology’s answer to the climate conundrum. http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=4791

CO2 capture project. 2007. http://www.co2captureproject.org/technologies/tech_img2.gif

Cook, Greg and Zakkour, Paul. Undated. The new face of King Coal? Environmental finance. http://www.environmental-finance.com/2005/0507jul/coal.htm

Det Norske Veritas (DNV). 2007. Energy decision-makers back CO2 capture and storage technology. http://www.dnv.com/press/

EnergydecisionmakersbackCO2captureandstoragetechnology.asp

Environment News Service. 2006. Europe Tests Carbon Capture at Coal-Fired Power Plant. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-15-06.asp

Heddle, G., Herzgog, H., and Klett, M. August 2003. The economics of CO2 storage. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

International Energy Agency (IEA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG). 2007a. What is CO2 capture and storage? http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/whatisccs.htm

IEA GHG. 2007b. CO2 transmission cost calculator. http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/co2costcalculator/co2transmission.htm

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp.

Kazmi, A.H. & Jan, M.Q. 1997. The Geology and Tectonics of Pakistan. Graphic, Karachi, 544 pp.

Melzer, L. Stephen. 2002. The Permian basin CO2 sequestration model and Ridgeway Petroleum’s St. Johns Project.

Orient Petroleum International Inc. (OPII). 2007. Personal communications. Islamabad, Pakistan.

 

 

Email Article

Print Article

Next Article