How the oil and gas technologies fuel CCS projects: an interview with Jeong Daein

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects are becoming widely explored as the next solution for carbon reduction. Accompanying its growth is the collaboration with oil and gas industries, where certain technologies are being shared to construct carbon capture facilities and plants. SLB is one company that facilitates such collaboration by providing a wide range of technologies and services for oil and gas development, now working with several CCS project applications. Jeong Daein at SLB discussed what such connection looks like and offered personal insights on recent energy transition trends and how environmental regulations are influencing the future advancement of CCS projects.

First, could you tell us about the work you're currently doing?

I work at a company called SLB. Originally known as Schlumberger, it's a company that supplies various technologies, services, and equipment needed for oil and gas development. My main responsibilities involve developing and selling software related to oil and gas fields, and then providing consulting services using that software.

Recently, technologies used in oil and gas fields are also being widely applied in CCS, or carbon capture and storage. So, I'm involved in various related projects both domestically and internationally.

You just mentioned CCS—could you elaborate on what specific work you or your company is handling in that area?

We need software capable of designing processes to capture CO2 emitted from various factories, such as cement plants, petrochemical plants, or sites producing oil and gas from oil and gas fields. This software is essential for modeling and performing simulations to determine how to optimally construct the CO2 capture facilities and plants.

Next, methods for transporting CO2 from capture sites to storage locations include pipelines for long-distance transport. So, there's the method of moving it through these steel pipes. That's typically used when the distance is far, like when the capture site is several hundred kilometers away from the storage site.

However, when CO2 captured in Korea is transported for injection into storage sites in Malaysia, Indonesia, or Australia, it is moved by ship. Therefore, we perform the design of various equipment and facilities for the ships, or the design of pipelines, along with related modeling and simulation.

And when actually injecting CO2 into the ground for storage, various physical and chemical changes occur during the storage process. We model and simulate these changes, including the scientific and physical alterations in the subsurface structure caused by the injected CO2.

It seems you handle a lot of the transportation work in CCS. I've heard that this is a difficult process because making pipes requires special materials. In your opinion, what is the most challenging part of the CCS transportation process?

The most difficult aspect of the CCS transportation process is... well basically, CO2 can exist in a form like dry ice when it encounters water at low temperatures. You know, like the ice packs they give you when you buy ice cream to take home. When we inject it, it's in a gaseous or liquid state. But when it encounters specific temperatures, pressures, and the presence of water molecules, the CO2 binds with those water molecules. Right? But if the CO2 flowing as a gas or liquid transforms into ice, the resulting ice can clog the CO2 pipes. And if they get clogged, you can't inject any more CO2. 

Therefore, we must carefully observe such phenomena, and since various similar phenomena can occur, transporting CO2 through pipelines is challenging. As you mentioned, the materials for CO2 transport pipelines, along with the necessary equipment and ancillary equipment, are expensive. Because the cost is so high, this becomes a constraint when pursuing CCS projects. 

CCS is actually an environmentally friendly project aimed at achieving carbon neutrality. How are oil and gas development technologies being incorporated into such projects?

Oil and gas exploration involves locating underground reservoirs. If the reservoir is shallow, it's at 2-3 thousand meters; if deep, it's at 4-5 thousand meters. You find the structure where oil or gas is trapped, drill a well to confirm its presence, and then develop the reservoir through that well. When implementing CCS, the capture process is supported because the emission sources are already known. That's because the locations of the power plants, steel mills, or other facilities where capture occurs are known, making it very easy to pinpoint the capture points.

Building pipelines is costly and technically challenging, and constructing carrier ships to transport CO2 is also technically difficult. But even if these are tasks humans can handle, the technical aspects are relatively straightforward. Finding storage sites, however, is extremely challenging. It involves determining where underground, in which site or region, it would be safe to bury this CO2. 

Finding these sites effectively requires technologies like physical exploration and logging, which are similar to those used in the oil and gas industry. Utilizing these technologies allows us to identify promising CO2 storage sites both domestically and internationally, because we can conduct exploration. And fundamentally, drilling wells for oil and gas development versus drilling wells for CO2 storage doesn't differ significantly in terms of the technology itself. Of course, the materials, devices, equipment, or valves used may differ, but the core technology itself is essentially the same.

Furthermore, once all the development work for CO2 injection is completed and actual injection begins, the operational know-how is essentially the same as that used in developing and operating oil and gas fields. Technologically speaking, the techniques used in oil and gas field development can be directly applied to CCS.

Looking ahead, from a corporate perspective, how do you think national policies or internationally established environmental regulations are influencing the future advancement of CCS projects?

Fundamentally, CCS isn't actually a money-making venture. Because to make money, you need to produce something and sell it to consumers, right? But with CCS, you capture CO2 that was being emitted and then store it. It's essentially disposal, so there's nothing to sell. So, for this project to actually proceed, the government or the companies providing loans must offer credits for CO2 reduction or some other incentive. That's the only way this project can operate.

But honestly, without regulations, if there are specific companies that haven't made efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and if no penalties are imposed on those companies, then companies that do follow the rules and reduce carbon emissions will naturally have a better image from the consumer perspective. But they'll spend a lot of money doing so. Companies that don't comply might suffer image damage, but they'll make a lot of money without spending much.

Naturally, companies will all gravitate towards the path that makes them money, even if it slightly damages their image. So ultimately, the government must implement regulations. It must set specific targets, and create a structure where sufficient rewards are provided upon achieving those targets. Only then will CCS projects proceed.

Fundamentally, looking broadly, CCS projects are particularly active in Europe. This is because countries in Northern and Western Europe are far more proactive and aggressive about CO2 reduction. They grant substantial credits for reductions, and consequently, the subsidy per ton of CO2 reduced is significantly higher than in Korea. It's roughly around 70 to 80 euros. But in Korea, it's less than 10 dollars. So, roughly speaking, they pay about 8 to 9 times more money, more subsidies, which is why projects are much more active there. 

This is something that needs to be done globally, with everyone participating, for progress to really accelerate. But just like we discussed with companies earlier, some countries are doing well, some aren't doing well, and then there are countries that are simply struggling to keep up. 

Finally, you've been working in the oil and gas industry for a long time. So, as an engineer with experience in this field, I'd appreciate it if you could share any personal changes, concerns, or thoughts you have about the recent energy transition trends or the goals for moving forward with this energy transition.

Achieving carbon neutrality is essential.

Ultimately, if humanity wants to continue living on Earth, we need to actively respond to climate change and the climate crisis. That said, in countries like Korea, I'm actually quite skeptical about the goal itself of building an energy source based entirely on 100% renewable energy.

Trying to move towards a cleaner, more extreme, purely clean energy source creates complications. For instance, in petrochemical power generation, switching from oil-fired power plants to natural gas plants is actually much more expensive. The cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced varies significantly depending on whether natural gas, oil (crude oil), or coal is used.

Therefore, if coal was used, the approach should be to gradually reduce carbon emissions and secure cleaner energy sources. This could involve closing coal-fired power plants and replacing them with natural gas plants capable of substitution. In reality, nuclear power accounts for a very large proportion of electricity generation. However, excluding nuclear power, the remaining energy sources are mostly oil and gas.

Therefore, simply using more electricity doesn't reduce carbon emissions. Even if we use a lot of electric vehicles, the electricity powering them comes from oil and gas, so this doesn't solve the problem. Considering these factors, while increasing the proportion of renewable energy is necessary, renewable energy isn't as clean as we might think.

And actually, if we just switch from coal to natural gas, Korea's CO2 emissions would decrease significantly. If we then combine that with CCS, power plants could actually achieve net-zero emissions. I think we should move in that direction.