 Okay, thanks Elizabeth and good morning everyone. Welcome to the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Earth Resources. My name is Jim Slutes. I'm the chair of the Committee on Earth Resources and when I'm not volunteering for this committee I serve as the director of study operations for the National Petroleum Council. We're very excited about today's program which is our first in beginning the discussion on on on the issues of what kind of earth sciences are needed. Hang on just a second. I'm sorry my I think I'm still here but somehow I'm losing my my screen. Can you guys still hear me? Your video is a little slow Jim but your your voice is is great so it's just okay okay sorry about that. I lost my connection screen so I'll reconnect in a minute but I just I I can't see the presentations right now. Anyway so the the Committee on on Earth Resources that have been exploring the topic of what are resources changes and opportunities in an energy transition and we we had planned a full in-person full day in-person meeting and then with the with all the changes that we're all dealing with we switched to a this webinar based and we we reduced it and focused on one one component of that and that's carbon capture use and storage and we will be continuing to to explore this theme in in future meetings and we have an exciting future plan on that. So today we're very fortunate to have four speakers with us today who will discuss different aspects of CCUS and while we look forward to a lively discussion and conversation with them. Before we get underway with some brief introductions of our for our speakers let me turn it over to Elizabeth 80 with the National Academies that will give us a little bit of logistics and then and can and introduce our committee members. Thanks Elizabeth. Thank you. Good morning everyone and welcome. Thanks so much for joining us here today. It's really terrific to see all of you here, committee members, our speakers and a lot of friends and colleagues. My name is Elizabeth Ada as Jim said and I direct the Committee on Earth Resources for the National Academies. We're delighted to be here this morning to have a this program about carbon capture utilization and storage and before I get to some of the logistics for a meeting and the introductions of our committee members I did want to offer my sincere thanks to Eric Edkin from our staff team who has been a great support and is basically we're all dependent on Eric. I'll just put it that way because he's running the show for us and he's done a magnificent job in the preparation for the meeting so thanks a lot to him for for helping with this whole program. So I'll review the agenda for you today. I think all of you will have seen that during the registration process but I wanted particularly to draw your attention to how you can provide feedback and questions for the speakers because we really want to try to make this setting as interactive as possible and we need your help to do so. Obviously with a large number of people logging on we want to make it as as organized as we can to make sure we get to as many of your questions as as possible. So all of our speakers will reserve about 10 minutes at the end of their time blocks for discussion relating to their presentations and Cindy and Nigel have a combined presentation so we'll wait until both of them are finished before opening the floor to questions. They'll have time set aside at the end of today's session about 25 minutes or so for further questions or discussion related to any of the talks or questions directed to the whole group and we do have a short stretch break at a noon eastern time and we want to maintain that because we're all finding I think that breaks are important with these Zoom meetings. To avoid background noise Eric's going to keep everyone muted during the presentations and so to ask a question you see the instructions there on your screen you want we would like you to use the raise hand feature for all your comments and questions and what you do is you wave your your cursor down below you're probably all professionals at this by now but wave your cursor down at the bottom of your screen you'll see this participants button you click on that and you'll see a panel that opens off to the side at the bottom of that panel is this blue raise hand feature so you just click on that and a hand will come up by your name and the host will unmute your microphone what you're you're called on you won't be able to unmute you unmute your own microphone and the the order of the blue hands from top to bottom is actually the order that people raise their hands so Jim doesn't even have to worry about keeping track of that he can just start at the top and go down the list and again we'll try to get to as many of you as we can during the Q&A periods you can also if you don't want to give your question orally you want to post comments or questions via the chat function you can do that by sending a message to everyone and then this chat function is also down at the bottom of the screen if you wave your your cursor over that and if you have technical questions we'd like you to reach out specifically to Eric and you should be able to to get some information back to Eric as the host through the the chat function or you could email him at e-e-d-k-i-n at nas.edu so with that I wanted to mention to you too that the session is being recorded and we will be posting the session recording audio and visual of the session on our website probably a week or so after the meeting and for all of you who've registered we'll certainly let you know when that posting has taken place so with that said I wanted to ask our committee members I think all of them are on or nearly all of them are on and just to introduce yourselves name and your affiliation and then I'll turn things back to Jim to introduce our speakers so Jim I we've already introduced you so I'll just go down the list here as as our as our members are listed we'll start with you Bridget please. Hi everyone my name is Bridget Eiling I'm an associate professor at the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology at the University of Nevada Reno and I'm also the director of the Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy. Excellent thanks Bridget Carman. Hi I'm Carmen Agaritas I'm an extension associate professor and biosystem diagram cultural engineering at the University of Kentucky and Dan. Hello everyone Dan Colladol vice president of business development and technology for console energy based in the Pittsburgh Pennsylvania area. Thanks Dan good morning David. Yeah good morning this is David Spears I'm the state geologist of Virginia and formerly petroleum geologist. Hello Deborah great to have you with us. Hi Deborah Peacock I'm a metallurgical engineer and a registered patent attorney and I'm also on some corporate boards involved with copper mining lithium and graphite mining and alternative energy and I'm the chair of the Board of Regents at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology so today will be really important for that role as well. Thanks Deborah Joel. Hi I'm Joel Redder I'm retired from the Idaho National Laboratory and previously the USGS where I work primarily on geothermal energy. Thank you. Thanks Joel and John Marston. Good morning everybody my name's John Marston I'm a mineral technology engineer I head up a consulting business in the western US specializing in gold copper and cobalt extraction. Perfect thank you so much John and Jim I think that's that's the committee introductions completed so I'll turn things back to you to get us underway. Thanks Elizabeth appreciate it and we'll get here underway I'll just share that you know we talked about this being focused on carbon capture use and storage and we want to share information today on that but it's this I just want to acknowledge this is not a topic that could be covered in two days let alone two hours and so what we hope to do is share some insights today but more importantly we hope to introduce you to a number of reference materials that are available and through various work that our speakers have done. We have an incredible group of speakers today and their detailed bios are available so I'll just give a real brief uh uh intros this morning and I'm going to introduce all the speakers now in the order that they're going to be uh be presenting just so we can more easily have the flow from presentation to presentation so we we basically have three different presentations but the first one will be presented by two different speakers uh Cindy Yielding is currently Senior Vice President of VP America and Cindy uh let me just give you a many of you know the uh the are aware of what the Offshore Technology Conference is and maybe the the largest conference gathering in the in the world and it was unfortunately canceled this year but but Cindy is the chair of the Offshore Technology Conference and in addition to uh to keeping busy with a ton of other activities she served as the uh as the leader of really what was the management team for the National Petroleum Council's carbon capture use and storage study that was released and approved in December and that that report titled the dual challenge and uh she both she and Nigel will be presenting information on that report today Nigel Genvy has over uh 23 years of global oil and gas industry experience in technology exploration development and production he is currently a Gaffney and Klein and Nigel leads their new global carbon management practice um Nigel led significant components of the uh NPC dual challenge uh study and report and he's going to specifically be presenting some some areas that he directly uh was involved in um our uh our next presentation is on on some several work of the National Academy of Sciences in this area and and Dr. John Holmes who is the director of director and scholar for the National Academy's board on energy and environmental systems uh and and so this is a board that includes the activities on climate mitigation and excess assessment electricity system modernization fuel economies technologies for light duty vehicles and energy innovation so um and then most of you know that uh that the National Academy's is the uh is one is probably the independent organization that has completed studies on climate related topics to a greater depth and breadth of almost any organization out there so John is going to be able to share some of the more recent and and and planned work in this area and then uh uh our third speaker is going to tie things together is Lynn or who is the uh uh Colleen and Colton Beale professor of petroleum engineering america's in the department of energy resources engineering at stanford university he previously served as under secretary of science and energy in the united states he was director of the precourt institute of energy and probably and before that the director of the global climate and energy project which which began in 2002 so i think um um Lynn can be described of one of the founding leaders on this topic so we're very exciting to uh uh that Lynn could join us today so um with those introductions i think we'll uh we'll hand it off to Cindy and Nigel to uh uh to present uh to make the first presentation mute okay hi everybody can you hear me now we can hear you okay perfect sorry there's that awkward moment where i couldn't unmute myself so um just like to say thank you so much to Jim and Elizabeth for having us here today our objective is to review the works findings and recommendations of uh the recently almost completed completed uh national petroleum council study on carbon capture use and storage so next slide please thank you so Nigel and i will be tag teaming as Jim said but we're gonna start out with some context because we believe it's really important that you understand you sort of the framework of the study and sort of the guardrails that that we we followed so first a little bit about the national petroleum council is a federal advisory committee it exists solely to advise the u.s secretary of energy and executive branch of government by conducting studies um we work in multi-discipline teams collaborating and it's really focused on getting consensus and advice the one thing that the npc doesn't do is advocate so we're just really putting uh answers to questions so if we move to the next slide um so here to start us off is is is the series of questions so our story begins with a letter from secretary of energy rick perry in 2017 requesting a study on how the u.s could move to application of carbon capture use and storage at scale please note he didn't ask us should the u.s move forward with cc us but rather how could we advance and that's an important important part of our story so next slide please eric so um the request asked five questions uh what what's a little bit of the context uh with regard to u.s uh and global energy demands um and environmental benefits coming from carbon capture use and storage what barriers uh must be overcome to deploy cc us at scale how should we define success and then how can we establish a policy framework um and stimulate investment to advance the deployment of cc us and then finally which you'll you'll see as we get into the the findings and recommendations what hurdles should be addressed to help progress cc us investment to enable the u.s to continue to be global technology leaders the next slide please so a little bit about our team overall the study team included more than 300 participants from um more than 10 different organizations um a lot focused on the but many multinational companies and then um several dozens of international members one thing uh that surprises people is over two-thirds of the study participants are actually outside of the oil and gas industry and just to give you an example our coordinating subcommittee which is the sort of leadership group of the the working committee of the study represented we had upstream downstream oil and gas we had lng biofuels we had lots of power representation NGOs and and government representatives in the in the study team so much much broader subject than than oil and gas um so if we go to the next slide the one secretary Perry's questions was um you know sort of define what moving to cc us at at scale means uh and we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what what problems we were we're trying to solve so um we it for the purposes of our our work we um in the u.s we collect about 25 million tons of co2 uh per year uh today and we think that at scale means that we would be capturing and storing or utilizing about 500 million tons so it's a pretty big um incremental shift um it would uh scale would require uh barring any huge technology changes most of the um co2 movement would be through pipeline infrastructure and that is roughly the equivalent of about uh three quarters of the u.s oil and liquids infrastructure we have in the u.s today so would be moving about 13 million barrels of equivalent of co2 um incremental investment in the hundreds of billions of dollars with uh support for almost uh um well 250 000 jobs and uh impacts in the gdp's of about 20 billion dollars annually now to do this um as i said earlier we really need to focus on policies clarifications of regulations legislation and incentives to move us forward with current currently uh used um technologies we also need to continue to invest in innovation technology development and testing of new new technologies um we believe this requires collaboration between um a range of governments certainly federal government and states but and also a number of industries and certainly we would need uh understanding and confidence and carbon capture use and storage and um you can't underestimate the um the impact and the need for public awareness and understanding that this is a safe set of technologies okay next slide please all right so we know you guys really kind of uh get this but we just wanted to make sure that you understood how we're thinking about carbon capture use and storage and with we um describe that as a technology supply chain where we engage a broad spectrum of technologies to create a carbon management system so cc us is a process that begins with capturing co2 emissions from industrial sources or directly from the air that co2 can be uh transported and moved directly into useful products or more often with the the technologies that are available today gases are compressed and transported to be injected underground where the co2 is is uh permanently and safely stored so a key point for us is there many different elements of these supply chain and they can be linked together to form the building blocks of a cc us project and we'll touch we'll come back to this a little bit later in the talk some of these technologies are mature and can be used today some require for the development and some haven't been invented yet so um i think let's let's move forward one more slide okay thanks very much so um another thing we wanted to make sure that everyone on the call bands um is we used the framework of the dual challenge uh to set up the case for carbon capture use and storage and that is the framework for our study so we wanted to make sure that we shared um our insights in what you know what the dual challenge actually means and it's it's represented well by these these two graphs on the slide um the first is around um every indicator points to a growing population and expansion of relative prosperity worldwide the demand for energy will be increased and certainly um as illustrated by historical data it's clear that carbon dioxide co2 emissions are are also on the rise so as a global society we face this fundamental dilemma that we've referred to as the dual challenge of providing more energy to support growing populations while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we believe that this is one of the fundamental challenges that society faces today so just um the next slide please so um another thing that um that we wanted to emphasize and we're using an IEA slide to help show you you know CCUS is not the magic bullet to solve all of the world's um carbon dioxide emission challenges but uh it is part um and potentially a very critical part that we can we can start to grow and execute on today um it's very much part of a clean energy portfolio and so we see this as a critical piece of an all of the above solution to address emission reductions and um we also so we think it's it's part of the solution it's not the only solution but we also think CCUS uh technologies that are under research and development offer some really good approaches towards a negative emissions scenario which may be required to reduce excess carbon dioxide uh from the atmosphere and I think that that John and Lynn will touch on that a little bit more in their presentations later so next slide please so some things that we we I think many of you already know but we discovered as a team as we move forward so we just wanted to share these pieces with you before um I turn the the presentation over to Nigel uh for context on our economic framework but uh we really wanted to highlight for all of you that um the US has become the world leader in CCUS we have um many decades of successful of experience in um enhanced oil recovery 10 of the 19 industrial scale projects at the time we published this study which was for Q of last year when we went through are here in the US and they represent 80 of the world's carbon capture capacity we already have 5 000 miles of co2 pipeline which represents about 85 percent of the world's existing co2 pipeline um we have a great government leadership program and support within the department of energy they have decades of experience of cutting-edge research leading r&d programs and collaboration in in testing and demonstration and we actually have really good policy support in place as we get into the next few parts of the presentation we'll see there are certainly places that we could clarify enhance policy but the regulatory framework and the policy support we have a very very good start courtesy of some great work that's been taking place over the last few decades so with that let's move to the next slide and I'll turn the presentation over to uh Nigel to share some of the uh methods we employed to um frame the study many thanks Cindy um thanks to to Jim John Guy of course and Marshall Nichols at the NPC and and indeed Elizabeth and Eric and members of the national academies committee on earth resources I think as Jim noted earlier and mentioned earlier on I had the pleasure um to be the alternate chair um you know really the the deputy for Cindy really in that management team um and also I was involved um in the delivery of kind of two key elements of the study the cost assessment and the roadmap and Cindy's going to show you were the roadmap later on um so indeed one of the key elements of the study was to evaluate the current state of costs and economics to derive the level of incentive required to achieve wide-scale deployment of CCUS of course that's um you know quite a an ambitious um but yet thorough bottoms-up analysis of CCUS across the largest sources of carbon emissions that comprise 80 percent of all US station resources so before I start to populate this this chart we'll go through these axes um and um and let you orientate you around the approach and really the outcomes of course of the the analysis that we did so as you can see the left vertical axis is the cost to capture transport and store one tonne of CO2 plotted against the bottom horizontal axis which is not a timeline but it's the volume of CO2 abatement possible this was an annual abatement based upon data that we pulled the total emissions for the US being on an annual basis 5.3 gigatons or 5,300 million tons uh in 2017 and all stationary point sources really comprised roughly half of that 2,600 million tons per annum and of course we evaluated the largest of those reaching up to 2,000 million tons per annum of CO2 emissions so if just advance and that will bring up um an insert great thank you um and as I said um you know mainly using data from the environmental protection agency we focused our analysis on CO2 generated from the top 850 stationary emission sources those sources of CO2 include ethanol, power plants, cement, steel, natural gas processing, fertilizer and others and of course as Cindy mentioned you know the participation of of experience and expertise from those industries of course is critical to include in such a study and in order to perform the economic analysis of course we also had to make economic assumptions and you'll see those listed there at the bottom of that that list a 20-year asset life a rate of return of 12 percent 100 percent equity financing two and a half percent inflation rate and the 21 percent federal tax rate now by performing this analysis really it provides uh the value of incentives as I mentioned and the business case needed to enable deployment the case for rdnd and how this could lead to a reduction of cost and Cindy's going to take you through that later on and really an economic wide basis for an economic impact assessment with respect to jobs created and GDP added now that's indeed referred to as the value of CCS now by having an economic model of course it also allowed us to assess the impact of merit order of various types of incentives including tax credits both production investment based lower cost of capital private activity bonds and loan guarantees other financial structures etc and so we were really able to go down to a bottom's up analysis and look at the merit order of each one of those and then that of course then moves through into our recommendations great next slide please now of course to get alignment on cost in to inside the study we've reviewed publicly available reports supplemented this with industry expertise and experience of things like owner's cost to really ensure a representative total as built cost we then applied an open book approach to a set of uniform financial assumptions that I took you through needed to produce that 20 year cash flow and a fixed level incentive over that period now that can be different to the basis used for specific projects however our objective was to look across all sources 850 of them across at a national level and therefore we decided earlier on that in order to evaluate the level of incentive we wanted to use a fixed cost basis and not as not all incentives are linked to inflation and sometimes this incentive based inflation can be different to other cost based inflation rates the coupling knows really we felt enabled a clear view of the costs and the incentives needed and knowing that that all of that context is important to clarify and to ensure transparency of we therefore provide a publicly available cost assessment tool and reference costs for different CCUS applications online allowing public access to change not only the cost financial assumptions but also the methodology that we use to present our output now this is available online and it's my pleasure indeed to host this on the gaffney client website the address is there on the slide next slide thank you so let's populate indeed that framework that those axes with with our analysis here you'll see two key things the gray shaded areas the marginal cost curve made up of CCUS implementation for various point sources each having a cost and volume plotted in an ascending cost manner this is this is as of the 27 data set that we used so it's a snapshot in time it also uses existing technologies that are commercially available and can be used at scale now there are three illustrative examples of stationary sources highlighted over there on the left one for ethanol fermentation one for cement and one for natural gas fired power plant running really as a base load the red color indicates the cost of capture the major elements in the supply chain and this can vary of course from each source type as well as each source dependent upon its scale the darker red color indicates the cost for both transport and storage stroke enhanced or recovery use now note that the width of each of those bars in this example is illustrative it's expanded in scale for visibility purposes only so it does not indicate the actual true volume for each of those sources okay next slide please so as previously referenced the study really envisaged three phases of deployment and we'll describe these as they go as as they appear on the cost curve activation expansion and at scale deployment the first here you'll see this blue color dark blue color added on to the current as Cindy mentioned earlier on 25 million tons worth of CCUS capacity in the US and this first activation phase it gives us a jump start by clarifying existing federal tax policy and regulations and really no congressional action therefore is required those actions will activate an additional 25 to 40 million tons per annum of CCUS deployment doubly and effectively existing CCUS capacity in the US over the next five to seven year period next slide please the next phase the expansion phase this is built now upon congressional and regulatory agency action for enhancement and expansion of existing policies as Cindy mentioned earlier on those actions could result in yet another doubling of CCUS capacity within the next 15 years to a cumulative capacity of around 150 million tons per annum next slide please and then finally the third phase the at scale phase this is that lighter blue section on the chart represents really what would be required from additional financial incentives and policy support to continue investment towards the 500 million tons per annum of CCUS deployment and CO2 abatement this level of deployment is estimated really to occur over a 25 year timeframe achieving CCUS deployment at scale of course will be that additional 350 to 400 million tons per annum in the next 25 years and that's going to require substantially increased support really driven by national policies now the next few slides that Cindy and I will take you through include the NPC process of crafting findings and supporting recommendations as an executive summary these findings tell a comprehensive story and of course we're going to take you through those our first four findings frame the case for building CCUS at scale in the US the report highlights the dual challenge and the fact that addressing cost effectively requires CCUS beyond the benefit to reducing emissions the report identifies increase in deployment of course of CCUS as an economic benefit to the nation in terms of jobs market opportunities capabilities and indeed we're of course as Cindy mentioned a world leader with about 80 of the world's current CCUS capacity of course R&Ds also well underway with the Department of Energy investments of about 4.5 billion dollars over the last 20 years really underpinning the future of the of deployment and we also have the beginnings of course of meaningful public policy now next slides will cover the remaining six findings and corresponding recommendations okay finding five activations so as we described in the cost curve the report is underpinned by a three-phased approach starting with what we call the activation phase this phase is focused on actions from federal agencies as you can see for example the IRS and US Treasury can focus on clarifying the existing tax policy and regulations with regards to 45q the EPA can work to enhance and strengthen class six well permitting process and the Department of Interior and states can clarify rules around poor space access and ownership this will take of course away one big obstacle and that's uncertainty and these actions could therefore double that capacity as I mentioned earlier on the map as you can see portrays really of course in industry in its infancy with local co2 emission sources being delivered to nearby subsurface co2 storage sites primarily enhanced or recovery during the activation phase about 50 billion dollars worth of CCUS investments over over 20 years would result these investments and multiply effects of course will support 9000 jobs and about 1.4 billion dollars in annual GDP it expands the baseline this phase and should also increase public support allowing us to move on to the next phase next slide please the next phase expansion phase will require Congress and regulatory agencies to expand and extend existing policies and strengthen legal and regulatory framework for CCUS recommendations underpinning this funding include expanding the use of tax credits 48a and b and financial tools for CCUS projects private activity bonds master limited partnerships there are also recommendations to fund improvements in well permitting processes of course there's a number of projects increased across different states as well as additional regulatory reform at the federal and state levels focused on poor space ownership long-term liabilities and of course pipeline infrastructure development these actions will result in another doubling as I said of CCUS capacity the map as you can see illustrates a further expansion of sources and sinks that were enabled across the US and of course more co2 being transported through pipelines connecting different sources to regional sinks and during that expansion this expansion phase an incremental 124 billion dollars of investments is estimated um over 20 years and level of investment supporting about 42 000 annual jobs and 4.5 billion dollars in annual GDP next slide and so phase three at scale deployment this is our view at least as a the start of this is about 25 years away but it's really achievable with further increased support driven by a federal policy using proven technologies and today's cost with operational improvements we of course foresee the need for a mix of financial incentives amounting to about 90 dollars to about 110 dollars per tonne of of co2 our map offers now offers now demonstrates a broad range of sources and sinks as you can see with a broad pipeline distribution system across the continental us illustrative of course of full-scale distribution of the supply chain and during that phase total investments reached about 680 billion dollars over 20 years an economic impact of about 236 000 annual jobs and nearly 21 billion dollars in GDP as Cindy mentioned earlier on so just because the results are phased out of 20 over 20 plus years doesn't mean the work should be deferred of course it really this is really around a phasing and an approach um and because of the complexity of many of these solutions you know really work must begin now and I'll hand over back over to Cindy okay great next slide please and thank you Nigel so um Nigel just talked through basically the supply chain as it can be executed you know and and expanded to scale using proven technology so those graphs are all built and charts are all built on things we can do today aiming capture transport mostly via pipeline and a couple of different ranges of subsurface storage but um we also recognize that a commitment to carbon capture use and storage must include an ongoing commitment to research development and demonstration so this in the study we have a whole volume on technologies and we describe how they've been developed and we build the case for additional investment in those developments so um this chart really just demonstrates that the technologies in the supply chain today vary in maturity and we've we've got a range of technologies in capture compression and transport use storage and EOR across the x-axis and then a technology readiness level assessment across the y-axis and you can see um there are a lot of uh technologies you know ready for large-scale demonstration as well as uh technologies in their their infancy so uh what we wanted to do in the next couple of slides is um is highlight you know that there is good news in that we understand uh aiming capture and we know how to do it and we haven't actually made recommendations for a lot of investments in that particular area but we do recognize and recommend that or support the idea that we focus our dnd on less mature emerging technologies the potential for breakthroughs is great and those step changes that could result could reduce cost and lower the investments uh that we calculate today needed to unlock the benefits of at-scale deployment so if we go to the next slide um and we'll now talk about finding number eight research and development and uh so just as we've seen through a similar commitment to renewables research additional rdnd will lead the way to further innovation performance improvements and cost reductions over time that's why our report um calls for 15 billion dollars of uh federal uh government funded or government funded rdnd over the next 10 years to support fundamental research pilot programs and demonstration projects focused on these emerging technologies we also recognize that industry uh will also continue to partner with government and be investing uh significant resources of of its own to further this research and development so if we go to the next slide um so this was one of the uh healthier conversations we had over uh the duration of the study was you know how to really really assess the impact of uh rdnd um and fortunately we had team doe jared daniels uh john latinsky a whole host of experts to help us with methodology and um ways of trying to to value techniques to uh demonstrate the impact of research and and development so the little simple orange arrows on this slide actually have a huge um a huge sort of implication and they they represent uh maybe up to a 30 percent cost reduction just in in aiming technology on this this slide um if if we were to achieve just a 30 percent reduction through learning by doing uh technology advances and improvements we'd achieve a tenfold in return on that investment of 150 billion cost savings at the deployment scale so um really really big potential for future technologies and cost reductions and just the last point we wanted to make on this is as you can see that these arrows could also serve to help flatten that cost curve out enabling us to uh to move you know from the sort of 500 million um tons per annum collected to much greater numbers at at similar costs um so all of this could could be really great investment uh with regard to technology so let's um so yeah technology let's go to the next slide which covers our last two findings um so we just wanted to emphasize uh findings uh nine and ten from the study and these are these represent the full range of findings that nigel kicked us off with uh the first is um that none of this um maybe with the exception of phase one could actually be accomplished without public understanding public confidence and public support so the report recommends engagement approach informed at providing information to the public to help secure that support and answer any questions that they may have and then so that's really the the crux of finding nine finding ten we believe that the oil and gas industry actually has a huge amount to offer in ensuring us leadership in ccus deployment the sector has a lot of experience in in designing and safely deploying major projects required to execute at scale deployment and we have a really good knowledge of full value chain uh integrated systems and experience in developing and deploying new technologies so um with that we just sort of we'll go to the next slide and just a high level summary of the the key messages you know the us is currently the world leader in carbon capture use and storage and we are uniquely positioned to deploy ccus at scale uh ccus can be deployed today however the economics are challenging and that deployment at scale requires clarity stable and enduring policies and regulations and indeed given current costs incentivization to catalyze development we firmly recommend investment in research development and deployment will help create further applications additional opportunities and quite likely to drive down costs and we believe that put together these actions can stimulate a new industry for the us creating jobs capability and economic growth not only for the united states but for the global global marketplace so um a couple of more pieces a couple of pieces more we wanted to share with you guys so if we go to the next slide um we'll just share a little bit about the study and uh first Nigel mentioned we do have a roadmap there's actually a two page spread in our executive summary which kind of summarizes a lot of the content from this presentation and certainly from the executive summary recommendations and and deployment so we'd encourage you when you look at a copy of the executive summary to look at that roadmap to look for uh you're sort of the really really high level value of financial incentives a business case to enable deployment the case for rdnd and the economic impact of uh the jobs and analysis Nigel is holding it up um our two page spread so a little bit more about the structure if we go to the next slide uh there oh there's that there's what Nigel is holding up so that's the roadmap over there on the left hand side of your screen um a little bit more about the structure all the study recommendations and findings um are captured in the first volume of the report which is referred to as the executive summary um that is has been published it's available from the npc website you can order a copy of it or you can download a pdf online and again that is a final version if we go to the next slide um there are two more volumes that can be downloaded loaded from the npc study but uh john guy and the team at npc are still sort of in the final process of of editorial um and kind of just making this putting this into the npc sort of final format but you'll see a volume on uh the analysis of ccs deployment at scale that includes the energy outlook the economics the policy and regulatory and legal enablers and also then a um absolutely brilliant uh volume on technologies which kind of provides historical look and uh and look forward on each of the elements of the supply chain there are also supporting uh appendices and some supporting papers that you can find on the website as well so just we'll just romp through the next couple of slides so if we go to the next one uh just a shout out for um our authors supported again by this team of over 300 people but um these are the the uh leaders of the chapters in the volume two and if we go to the next slide you'll see um the contributors and lead authors on the technology volume so um just finally to give you just a few more minutes for question if we move to the last slide um we just want to say thank you um thanks to the department of energy as we alluded to before um they were always there to clarify answer questions uh just brilliant um sort of team to be uh steering us and advising us um and answering uh you know sort of keeping us on track certainly the national petroleum council um leadership team who many of whom were on the line today Nigel um recognized them and the staff for their patients in helping us through this is process and there was also another study going on at the same time on um us infrastructure and we collaborated a lot um held hands, consoled each other and shared sort of best practices as we went through it um probably the most important thanks were to all the participants I think many of you are on the phone uh saw a couple names flat by who helped uh deliver this study and we'd like to just say thank you for your contributions it's a labor of love and we do appreciate and love all of you for helping us get to to this point so I think with with that we'll turn the floor back to um Elizabeth and Jim I don't know if you want to take five minutes for questions or um move to the break but that concludes our study our overview of our study Cindy and Nigel thank you so much really appreciate that great overview and I first I didn't at the beginning I acknowledge because I'm a bit biased on this one because of my my day job but uh uh but uh having brought this to the the committee I I thank the committee members who who did review it and see value in making sure we included this on the on our agenda um the uh what what we do have time for questions while we're while we're getting queued up and if uh waiting for some folks to raise their hand let me first acknowledge we did have a request on the chat function asking for the link Nigel and then somebody else answered it so let me let me also add that the full report uh is available at dualchallenge.npc.org and so we can list that and make that available somewhere or you can just go to the npc website npc.org and find a link to get there so uh so all this is available online downloaded no no cost and it's in the final stages of being tidied up to be very pretty uh digital publications so uh with that and while we're waiting for other what let me also acknowledge that right now we're going to focus on on clarifying questions right after each presenter that focused on their material they they addressed there will be time at the end of the session to have a broader ct us uh questions and and would be the time for anybody that wants to make you know just offer broader thoughts to do that at the end of the the webinar so first just to get us rolling elizabeth would you like to uh you have any questions to kick off uh and or others that may have come in from the chat box thank you very much uh jim and uh thanks a lot cindy and nigel that was a really great overview very very uh comprehensive and and i know we pressed you into a very short time frame you did a fabulous job with that so thanks thanks so much um i actually had a had a question this is my own question uh for towards uh some uh comments from nigel and that was with regard to your your uh cost analysis you're using the capture transport and storage is the three the three of the variables uh in making those calculations and i wondered if you could break out the the the way that you considered storage i understand that ur is part of that but i suspect it wasn't all of that i wondered if you could could elaborate a little bit on how the the storage uh costs were were calculated or brought into the picture yeah thanks lilsa but so we we basically had um uh storage costs um we basically reviewed um there's a nettle DOE nettle cost um tool for co2 storage we reviewed that updated it with just like everything else sort of industry viewpoints experience uh from uh from the npc members and contributors to the study um and so basically we ultimately uh ended up with uh um both for eor basins and also saline formations a regional cost basis and uh you'll be able to uh to see what those are for the saline informations um online um actually within uh some of the materials that we make publicly available and of course they're also covered um in the actual report itself as well so yeah basically um a regional cost basis uh for the different geological parameters um you know to represent the various the variation that there is across the us perfect thank you very much jim i'm looking i think uh yeah there's another question on the chat box should do you want to read it jim or shall i oh uh oh that go ahead that's uh when when will the tool be available to the public is that the is that no no there's one that just came in uh from john marston um i can go ahead and read it go ahead and read it because i must not be seen it on my oh yeah i gotta scroll up okay ken and i'm not sure uh with this is for for nigel or cindy um so can you please elaborate a little more on the incentives requirements the 90 to 110 dollars per ton and what forms these might take so yeah um cindy do you want to do until i can i can i'll kick off um so really congressional action of course um to implement economic policies amounting to to that level of support now of course there's there's various types of policies and also combination of existing incentives that can be blended together in order to achieve that overall amount so rather than stipulate you know specify which we think that you know those could be of course the evaluation of those policies that would uh be most beneficial to to the us in order to achieve the objectives you know they really should occur currently you know really during the prior expansion phase to evaluate which ones would be best in order to be blended and of course it's a performance based um type system so of course the level of as cindy mentioned also may actually be lower than that depending upon of course the um deployment of new technologies and uh maternal matter investment of r&d yeah and i think john you know clearly just because i'm sure everyone's wondering about that you know one form could be a tax on carbon um but as nigel mentioned um that could also be uh changes to existing incentives um or policies and uh you know we found pretty quickly that kind of everybody had their uh their own idea of uh what would work best and and it was you know people viewed these through very specific business lenses and we we learned uh through the um it's through the uh collaborative and consensus driven uh nbc process that uh it really um wasn't in the best interest for us to define exactly how that set of incentives could be uh realized but rather to describe that given current technologies and current costs we believed they would be required and leave that to the policy makers to determine the most beneficial ways to move forward with that for a broad range of industries that would depend on these uh incentives okay thank you cindy thank you nigel just in the interest of time and i'll remind everybody we're going to have time to come back around but i want to try to give you at least a seven minute break and we will reconvene promptly at uh at 12 10 so get up stretch your legs uh and uh and we'll join you in a few minutes thank you all according to my clock we're at 12 10 so i i presume everybody see some of the faces i see people reconvening and first of all let me say that the national academies has done a lot of these and uh and have determined that having a break in the middle of a two hour webinar is an important component and i know i've been on a number of these marathons that go two two and a half hours or longer without and and i'm i'm quite pleased that that's the best best practice that's been developed to give people a chance just to to have nothing else uh you get a chance to uh to refocus your thinking and and stay attentive so i think that's all all a good thing reminds me uh i digress just for a minute while we're getting uh reminds me that uh that i remember in grad school we had four hour long classes and and uh and uh with with maybe one break and and so i think there's some uh some value to keeping this in the hour time frame between uh between material so with that is uh it we're going to transition to uh to john holmes with the national academy of sciences sciences and john is going to take a look at negative emissions technologies and deep carbonization so i'm not seeing john on my screen i assume he's up here and and ready to go absolutely um and over to you good can everybody hear me okay uh thumbs up good perfect good good good hey um what i want to talk about today and this is kind of a continuation of of what was talked about with cindy and nigel is is to talk another aspect about carbon capture and sequestration and that's negative emissions technologies and then i also get the opportunity to kind of bring in a little bit of the the topics that you're not getting into in this webinar because of time which is the full energy transition um so we're going to start off talking next slide hopefully next slide yeah we're going to be talking about a report that we did on negative emissions technologies um that was released in in in 2018 can you hit it again and what negative technologies are are our approaches for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it either on or underneath the earth's surfaces real basic definition um the report considers the report that we did only considered storage of carbon dioxide and terrestrial and coastal ecosystems or geologic reservoirs so we didn't look within this report in using enhanced to uptake in the ocean there's a couple of reasons for that one of them is obviously when you go to the oceans you reach you go into international waters you go into international regulations we were looking at negative emissions technologies and research activities that could be done within the continental united states could you hit it again but i would note that the academies because this was kind of an overlooked area we are going to start a study hopefully within the next few months on looking at using enhanced ocean uptake for another way of doing negative emissions technologies move on to the next slide please so what are the rationales for um for looking at negative emissions technologies obviously it's about climate change and reducing carbon pollution um as as Cindy and Nigel also noted right now there's some tax credits available associated with the 45 q that that that provides some economic incentives to look at this but also if we do believe climate changes is kind of a fundamental issue that we're going to have to be addressing in the future then looking at negative emissions technologies and being the leader in negative emissions technologies will increase us economic competitiveness and technological leadership um also there is a potential to use negative emissions technologies to control climate to control carbon pollution with less decrease in fossil fuel use so what we what a real fundamental element of this study that one of its most fundamental conclusions is net is our best views as a component of the mitigation portfolio of the emissions mitigation portfolio they're no different than looking at reducing carbon emissions from co2 um from from light duty vehicles which i work on a lot of times or from the electricity grid um rather than a way that we're going to somehow rebalance the atmosphere by sucking out a whole bunch of co2 because if you remove co2 from the atmosphere and store it in the ground that's no different than not emitting co2 at all from a vehicle or from uh you know from a jet or whatever um but also in some cases it may be cheaper to do a negative emissions technology as all of you know there are some sources of co2 emissions that are called the hard to decarbonize ones the ones that are associated with processes um the ones that are um let's say where where the volumetric density of a fossil fuel is really important such as when you're on an airplane or something like that anyways go on to the next slide and so this is one of the one of the places that you know negative emissions can can help us continue to use fossil fuel emissions where there are fossil fuels where they're absolutely necessary because some of the characteristics some of the energy density of them um rather than trying to move to something else and the option that we or the example we always use was looking at um jet fuel you know well we could develop cellulosic biofuels to develop um to run jets on um that could be expensive requires land to grow we obviously didn't even put electrification of jets on here because everybody knows it's it's kind of tough to really think of a of a long-distance jet running on electricity but even if we thought of cellulosic biofuels as a potential solution they're very expensive and they require land resources um the other option is to just capture co2 and offset the co2 that comes from the from commercial aviation using carbon um you know direct air capture or some other mechanism um if this would cost $50 per ton of co2 that would add about 50 cents per gallon you can do the math $100 per ton of co2 would add about a dollar per gallon to the cost of fuel sometimes that can be a competitive um solution compared to moving to cellulosic biofuels if we want to eliminate net carbon emissions from commercial aviation move on to the next slide please okay so the task statement for the committee is fairly straightforward it was to look at some of the unanswered scientific and technological questions that are you know used to to look at the benefits risk and sustainable scale potential increase the commercial viability of carbon dioxide removal and sequestration hit it again um real important element and this was the most popular element of the study was really to define the essential components of a research and development program and the specific tasks required to answer those questions anybody who looks at that report will see a very detailed research agenda associated with all the elements all the negative emissions technologies that we that we looked at hit it again um and estimate the cost and potential impacts of such a research and development program i didn't realize i had this sequence like this so i'm i hit it again and see if we move on to the next uh recommend ways to improve such a research and development program hit it again and we should move on to the next slide um committee members um i was the study co-director along with uh katie thomas who's at the board on um atmospheric sciences and climate she's now no longer with them she's at the climate alliance this is the group of people that were the committee members as everybody knows the committees are very important these groups um develop a consensus report they write the report um and if you know the background of these folks they stretch from people who are soil scientists who are foresters to people who are interested in mineral mineralization and uptake of of co2 naturally through rocks as well as the group of people that are very understanding of direct air capture and the technologies associated with that as well as coastal carbon um would you hit it again and then let's go to the the types of negative emissions technologies this is what really got me interested in this study quite frankly i talked my way onto this study and that was because it's a fascinating set of technologies it stretches from you know kind of the low tech natural carbon solutions enhancing soil uptake of carbon um forestry approaches to kind of the high tech solutions the direct air capture solutions and then there is the and and and peter kellerman would kill me if i said the science fiction approaches but the carbon mineralization approaches are just fascinating there are rocks out there that are exposed to the ambient atmosphere naturally absorb co2 what do we do with that how do we turn that into something that's a technology that can be utilized all that is covered within the report um very interesting and then there's some like i said that are that are a little bit more niche coastal blue carbon using the high productivity of tidal wetlands to store carbon unfortunately there's not a large geographic extent so there's not a lot of potential there in terms of the absolute amount um and then the familiar bioenergy with carbon capture that combines something i love producing electricity with something we're all here to talk about which is removing carbon anyways next slide um one of the most fundamental elements and i'm not going to show the detailed tables of the research agenda that we came up with but one of the most fundamental elements that the that the committee came up with was what they thought were the relative rankings of of costs for these as well as the upper bound for safe potential removal of carbon using these different types of technologies um in a later slide i'm going to show what's kind of assumed to be required for reaching deep decarbonization or net zero by 20 by mid century but what these numbers show is that the upper bound for the safe and for the low cost options don't quite do it in terms of the amount of carbon capture and sequestration through negative emissions technologies that we really anticipate that negative emissions technologies are going to have to do there's a lot of cheap potential out there for a forest station reforestation forest management and agricultural soils and backs those are low costs let's say under a hundred dollars per ton of co2 as well as fairly far along in terms of our technological know-how in terms of how to do those but they don't quite add up to um the level that we need to reach and i will note our committee was fairly conservative when they looked at the natural carbon solutions to make sure that we were only including what we considered what the committee considered was a safe number and when i mean a safe number we're not utilizing we're not changing land uses so that there's not this trade-off between food versus energy versus carbon sequestration so for example for the bacteria for the biomass that was available for um bioenergy with carbon capture we only used um we used the the the um oak ridge billion tons study but then we cut that down and used what was only considered the waste biomass available we didn't look at changing land use anyways next slide please oh and yeah let's say again i i forgot these things are popping up safe means you know without large-scale land use changes that could adversely affect food availability and biodiversity next slide okay we got another one um upper bound also means and this is an important one you know when you look at the forest management when you look at the agricultural soils and you look at those numbers they really mean a full adoption of agricultural soil conservation practices forest management practice waste biomass um um capture now some of those when there's an incentive for farmers for agricultural soil conservation we can get a lot of uptake um for some of the other ones for the forest management practices they're a little tougher to actually um get that upper bound and waste biomass um um capture everybody knows it takes a lot of effort to move that waste biomass around that's a fairly diffuse source um so there's a lot of discussion on on moving biomass around next slide please hopefully next slide oh okay keep going to keep it yeah four options are ready to be scaled up and i think this is very important but their capacity is substantially less than the expected demand or need for negative emissions technology next um so the overarching conclusion of this is that there's really two technologies that form kind of a backstop for negative emissions technologies those are direct air capture and carbon mineralization both of those have were only limited by four um direct air capture for the amount of sequestration volume that we have in the in the country and in the globe that's a that's a fairly large number and then we'll talk a little bit more about that for carbon mineralization there's a huge amount although the technologies to actually unleash that amount is fairly large um but then there's a you know other ones blue carbon has capacity um that's less than other options but it potentially could be done just when we enhance our coastal resilience processes next slide this is a real fundamental issue what is the potential market for NETs or equivalently how much carbon uptake is needed to meet the Paris goals again next slide or next um this may be a little hard to see but what you see here is it kind of a representative pathway for me being you know net zero by mid-century and the teal colored stuff at the bottom is the negative emissions contribution to that level what that shows is that by mid-century we should be at 10 gigatons per year and by end of century by about 20 gigatons per year to meet that Paris um two-degree type trajectory so that implies that we need a significant amount of negative emissions technologies or net contributions to even meet that and you know within the the tan and within the light green areas is really where some of the carbon capture and sequestration that we talked about in the earlier part um and also what this shows and I think is very interesting is that negative emissions technologies can be started before we the old idea was negative emissions technologies would come in after we've depleted all our other emissions mitigations approaches after we've reduced carbon emissions from vehicles from the grid from buildings to its maximum extent and what this shows is that negative emissions technologies come in a lot earlier they come in as we're doing these other mitigation technologies or approaches next slide um yeah 10 10 gigatons are what we need globally about one gigaton within the united states by mid-century hit it again and 20 tons globally by the end of the century and again that's about two gigatons per year in the united states next slide so what I want transition to real quickly is some activities that we're doing at the national academies to think about deep decarbonization and how negative emissions technology and how carbon capture and sequestration move into that area um what we believe is that you know the national academies is uniquely positioned to help with this whole deep decarbonization set of activities because not only do we have great expertise that we can tap with our volunteers but we're extremely cross cross disciplinary um you know i'm here talking in front of a group that has you know tremendous expertise on on on on the earth sciences or whatever but I can also go within you know down one floor at the academies buildings and I can find people that are experts in policy and global affairs also in human behavior and in you know education and things like that the academies stretch across this interdisciplinary spectrum that we're going to have to look at for deep decarbonization what we're imagining is a multi approach multi activity approach to deep decarbonization the workshop the consensus study and form a long-running standing committee similar to what you guys did or or or elizabeth did an unconventional hydrocarbons next slide please so what do I think the value proposition for the academies and deep decarbonization is well everybody knows this but deep decarbonization is not going to be one I love academies reports I've done so many of them I can plot down an academies report we can plot down an ntcc report and that ain't going to be the end of the story all of us know deep decarbonization happens across the u.s economy with millions of actors across all sectors and it's going to happen over generations it's not going to happen based on one report and so this transition needs support from organizations that provide independence scientifically sounded by can engage across all dimensions and all issues and have the longevity and I think this is a very important longevity to operate through a generational transition and I think that's where the academies can contribute next slide I want to brag a little bit about our first activity you know our workshop on deep decarbonization because what we did was we put this whole scale question to our presenters and and this was what we fundamentally tried to address this is from you know an old board member of mine mic damage it's fine to have one great negative emissions technology it's fine to have great one zero carbon you know a solar cell an electric vehicle but unless you reach scale it doesn't matter it's not going to impact the problem and that was my emphasis scale scale scale your law's got to think about scale so what we did in this workshop is we took you know four sectors including direct air capture and says okay let's have the models modelers come in and tell us what we need to do to reach deep decarbonization you know what percentage of the vehicle fleet has to be at 100% EV and then let's talk to the industry and tell and have them tell us what that means for scaling up within the industry at the end of this presentation I put a couple of slides that just show some of the different industries and and what they responded when we put that objective to them because like I said I think it's very interesting hearing from Toyota to respond to you have to have 50% of your vehicle fleet being you know zero emissions by 2030 what does that mean for Toyota what does that mean for the industry anyways so that's at the end it's a plug for that for that for that study though or for the workshop summary next slide right now we're doing a consensus study we hope to have an interim report we plan to have an interim report released in in December or January one of the things that we have developed over time is what would be the most important contribution that this first consensus study could look at and what we're really focusing on is not that end goal that 2050 goal what does it look like what does that optimal pathway look like we're really focusing on the near to midterm what do we have to do to change the trajectory also what's very interesting about what we're doing is that we're not just looking about technology it was very clear that societal elements and policy elements have to be a full partner in this study and that is what we've what we put together the the task statement all the information on the committee is up on our website next slide and this is the committee roster you'll you'll see some familiar faces but what you will see though if you look at the background is that we have people from not just the technology side but we're kind of balanced between the technology people that think about societal transformation people that think about policy what isn't here though is a technologist that says there's only one technology solution everybody that is you know that we brought in that are that are technologists are really thinking about the broad array of technologies and they don't have a single horse that they like to ride and I think that's that that that should leave it oh one more slide because this this transitions into Lynn okay so two other activities that I want to just put on everybody's radar one is that we actually did do a study a similar study on negative emissions technology that looked at carbon utilization and all I will say is thermodynamics is a drag in terms of you know co2 is co2 and stuck together for that for a reason and it takes a lot to break the baby apart I will also and and when we also think about you know the the need to move I want to bring up a study that Lynn was part of the America's energy future study 2008 2009 where we said one of the most important things we got to figure out for the electricity sector is whether carbon capture and sequestration was going to work we need 2008 2009 this is a top priority we need to have demonstration projects we need to know if this is going to be a viable option for the electricity sector and yeah yeah you know and and here we are uh 2020 um and and we're still talking about it so anyways it's I don't know if that's good or bad but at least we're still talking about it on the rest of the slides we're not going to go through I want to leave them there they are talking about what we heard at the db carbonization committee and scaling up for other technologies not for ccs thank you john thank you very much we're gonna we have time just for a a couple quick questions let's to while people are thinking about anything they want to raise there was an interesting dialogue going on in the chat function about jet fuel and and just to kind of paraphrase because you've probably been having had time to really check this chat out john but maybe you could resupply that there were questions about 10 kilograms of co2 per gallon of jet fuel and and and and questions about what that meant and then somebody clarified that that's 3.15 kilogram of co2 and then there was some other other uh qualification that that would mean 80 capture efficiency which seems high so john what when you when you do some of those calculations you want to add a little bit of background on that particular i would have to go on negative emissions yeah i would i would have to go back to the report as to how we got that but i know i know the committee and it was reviewed felt that that was an equivalent um you know an equivalent amount of carbon you would have to take out of the atmosphere to offset one gallon of of petroleum and and maybe lin i i don't know if he has any um thoughts on that i can go back to the report and actually figure out how we how we calculated that but i know that was that was what we figured would be what needed to be captured to offset that one one gallon of of jet fuel okay and i think it was uh i i would say i i saw the way in your in your um in your presentation as as an example primarily to highlight why naked looking at negative emissions is important rather than looking at there's there's always a lot of questions on how do you calculate how do you validate and and that's something that uh that nigel's very much involved in and trying to figure out how do you how do you verify these uh these uh what it what it means to say sequester certain volumes so with that let me just look i'm not seeing anybody else raising hands where they're um any other any other folks that want to jump in or comment on that or other real quickly and we'll have about a minute before we transition here hey um i will add i i mean remember when we're talking about that that capture thing we're certainly talking about direct air capture we're talking about something offsetting that co2 from the one gallon of fuel using perhaps direct air capture so so you know we're we're talking about capturing that at 400 parts per million or or whatever um and clearly we don't capture you know for direct air capture you're not trying to capture 80 90 percent of what passes by that's a nice not the nice thing that's the that's one of the easier things you don't have to do like you do when you're when you're when you're capturing out of a power plant where you're trying to get 90 percent 95 percent of the co2 stream you're just you're you're capturing volume you're you're you know you're you're just trying to move co or remove co2 some may pass through your pot you know your your capture system you're not trying to capture every bit of it like you would through a concentrated stream okay john thank you very much we're going to transition over and we'll we'll turn over the uh turn this over to lin or to do our our third and our kind of wrap up presentation and then we'll after some discussions with lin we'll have an opportunity to open up to everybody for a broader discussion so um thanks all and lin you you have the floor uh do we are you hearing me now we've been fussing with the mute here okay good i can hear you lin and i think once you start talking it'll the screen will reshift so we can see you yeah okay good uh so thanks uh thanks to the previous speakers they said all the important stuff so my job is just to um to uh kind of summarize and wrap up and add my own opinions which i'll do happily uh next slide please so uh if you look back at what we've talked about there really are three parts to the process i mean there's the capture side of uh uh co2 uh we need to get it to some place where you might store it or use it um and then there are lots of options for storage uh uh and some there are plenty of potential options for utilization uh only a few of those in use now so so i'll try to say a few words about each of these uh and then add a little commentary and uh color to some of what's been said previously next slide please so uh this one i i suspect this slide might be hard for some to read on their screens the uh the the intent of the slide is to start on the left side with uh the various kinds of places you might um capture co2 and they're really two big classes of sources those that are concentrated so places like a power plant or uh or an ethanol plant or uh something like that where the the concentration of co2 in the in the gases is much higher than it would be in the atmosphere and then there are the low concentration sources in the air the atmosphere is the obvious one of those and there are big differences the the um uh concentration in the air is about 400 parts per million uh in a coal fire power plant it could be 12 to 15 percent so uh and maybe five or six percent in a natural gas fire power plant gas so so there's a big uh uh john i think said that thermodynamics was a drag um i have a lot of students who would probably agree with that statement but but i don't personally agree it's actually of course uh a limiting factor um that uh it's just a lot easier to capture co2 from uh and it takes less energy to do so from a concentrated source than it does from a low concentration source so for direct air capture we're battling the the uh that low concentration you have to move a lot more fluid to uh to do the capture and it takes more energy to do that the middle uh part of the slide shows the various kinds of capture processes here there are lots of them i'm only going to say a word or two about a few um but they range from the standard uh solvent uh kinds of capture that's used in natural gas separations and refining operations um uh all over the world uh two things that that membranes are used for separations in some place uh places and there are a variety of other options some of which are being used now and others of which are not um then um then on the right hand side of the slide there are all the kinds of ranges of potential uses uh you could for example uh store the the co2 in geologic formations you could make fuels or chemicals we could make minerals combustion materials or they can be taken up by biological systems uh so there are plenty of options there as well and i think several speakers previously made the point that what we do needs to be a portfolio of many of these uh these items no single solution but there's plenty of options for for moving to the next step next slide please so uh so let me say a word or two about the the capture side um they this is typically the highest cost uh step in a in any kind of carbon capture and storage project um the the cost numbers that the mpc study provided uh show this uh quite clearly most commercial systems now use uh typically a mean solutions of one sort or another um for separations this is done at commercial scale already around the world natural gas separations uh and then refining lots of other systems are being uh investigated uh various kinds of solid sorption fuel cells ionically lots of research underway uh not much at a scale this would all be at the kind of low trl levels that that are typically at the the researchy end of the the the study system um cost will still be the issue um and point again that concentrated is easier than diluted ones and all these separations require energy and sometimes water and other uh other requirements as well and we shouldn't forget that because the the energetic costs of some of the things that are being talked about are really quite substantial next slide please so so here's an example of something that's that I would call a hybrid system um a big question I think for us going forward is to what extent do fossil fuels like coal or natural gas stay in the mix it's easier to do things I think with with natural gas in terms of capture than with coal the concentration of CO2 in the effluent gases is typically lower but um but there's a lot less of other issues uh to deal with um but you can ask the question well do we want to keep a fossil fuel uh like natural gas in the energy mix here's one version of a process that might allow that um there's a demonstration plant run by net power outside houston that basically does an air separation unit upstream um and then a um they use pure oxygen to burn the natural gas the fluid that comes out of that is uh is high temperature mixture of CO2 and water um that can run a turbine that that uses CO2 as the working fluid for the turbine uh on the downstream end you have a this CO2 water mixture you cool it down to knock the water out and recompress that to the inlet pressure for the the turbine at this point if you just keep doing this this is a loop that um that uses CO2 as the working fluid you can't keep adding CO2 forever of course you have to take some out and you take it out at the high pressure side uh uh and uh with the cool CO2 um and then that's really already at the conditions required for storing the CO2 in the subsurface um these these supercritical turbines can be much smaller because turbines are just little wings and the mass flow over the wing is what determines the thrust on the turbine and that the mass density of CO2 and these kinds of conditions is quite a bit higher than this pristine so these turbines can be smaller now we'll see about how this competes on cost but the additional cost of removing uh the CO2 in this this cycle is pretty small and in dry places it actually makes fresh water so so it's a different version of it than than the solvent separation we'll see how they do on cost the efficiencies are actually pretty good for these turbines next slide the other option is to look at the low concentration source this is the direct air capture version that carbon engineering is the company that's doing this in canada basically they use a potassium hydroxide solution uh to capture the CO2 then they make uh pellets of carbonate and then uh regenerate that using uh thermal energy to do that and then a fissure trope synthesis to make a liquid fuel um they uh they claim uh in publications which i've seen some people argue with uh that they can get to cost around a hundred dollars a ton um we'll see of course uh those kinds of cost estimates are often done by optimists uh i've noticed um but and you also have to make some hydrogen to stick back on to the CO2 for the fissure trope synthesis so there are energy requirements here in a big way typical estimates i've seen call for like four times as much energy to make that fuel as it would you would get by burning it again so there would be big energy requirements for this next line please so assuming now that we can capture all that CO2 the next step of course is to transport it um this point was made earlier in the talks that we we actually know how to do this we have a lot of experience particularly um uh with the big pipelines from the the full corners area down to the oil fields in the permean basin uh in texas and along the gulf coast um the there's now a lot of experience on how to do this and the costs are pretty well known so if we're going to do this at really large scale uh nigel i think made the point that that we will need a pipeline network to do this um and there are big investments involved uh on the other hand they will carry big quantities of CO2 and so therefore the cost per ton will be relatively low there are some folks talking about ship transportation uh a potential project in the north sea for example um no question can be done it's uh it's akin to lng shipping um but it it's expensive um trucks brand transportation can be used but it's really only feasible for for pilot escape next slide so next big question of course is where would we put the CO2 and there really are quite a few options here oil and gas reservoirs for enhanced oil and gas recovery or one possibility heat formations that contain salt water now coal beds or shales there's no question you can absorb CO2 on on uh coals or shales and replace the adsorbed methane that's there now and that can be done whether this is practical i think remains to be established um EOR is the only economic approach in the absence of carbon price and in a with a better oil price than there is right now for example and then finally um there are basalt systems CO2 is uh uh john made the point that that uh CO2 can be reactive with rocks well basalts are one of those uh particularly if the CO2 is dissolved in water then it can can react and make solid minerals there's that happens that is a test underway in Iceland doing exactly that there's big volumes of basalts out there but there are plenty of remaining practical questions whether you can deliver the CO2 and keep it in place one conclusion i think is really quite strong and that the storage capacity worldwide is large compared to the feasible injection volume so so uh and the next slide makes that point next slide please well okay it'll be the one after that but i'll just say here that you know putting CO2 into the subsurface is um requires a number of things first of all you really do have to have a uh a sort of low permeability layers known as seal rocks to prevent the CO2 from migrating back to the surface uh and you need that in any of these settings if you if you displace CO2 with water it can be trapped in places as bubbles by capillary forces many of the the disposal techniques will take advantage of those CO2 of course dissolves in water and those of us that drinks off drinks know that that's true um and so eventually uh CO2 will um will dissolve in saline aqua hers for example and CO2 saturated water is slightly more dense than water uh without the CO2 so the driving force for CO2 to move to the surface is replaced by a um a driving force for it to really go down uh slowly so the trick is to keep all the the CO2 in place during the time it takes for solubility to happen mineralization reactions in most sedimentary systems are pretty slow and probably not big enough to make a big difference uh but that's not true in the basalt system next slide please so this slide does illustrate uh the some potential storage location um the the reddish cross hatching is oil and gas fields the blue is saline aqua furs and the other bits are uh uh coal beds and the dots on the slide show uh large-scale sources of CO2 so you can see that there are plenty of rocks in the U.S. that that could be um uh in principle could be used um the uh deep decarbonization or the negative emissions groups uh pointed out that not every one of these will be suitable and uh they'll need to be close to pipelines and such like but there um I think it's it's clear that the the the volume of rock available to do this is not going to be the limiting factor it's going to be other things like the cost next slide so what about enhanced oil recovery it's only it's really the only big market that we have right now for CO2 um and we have a lot of experience uh since the 1970s uh when I at the beginning of my career I worked on the pilots in some of the pilots out in west texas that we're done in order to see whether to build those pipelines from the four corners area we really learned a lot about what happens when you inject CO2 into rocks in the subsurface and uh this slide here shows that CO2 can actually displace oil very efficiently if uh if the pressure is high enough and we know why that happens and how to organize it all and uh we've spent many of us have spent our careers trying to figure out how to to use less CO2 to recover oil than than you might have needed now of course we need to re-optimize that and to to find a way to to use more CO2 that is to store CO2 more effectively and leave more of it behind but there is good evidence that we can use depleted oil and gas fields to do this now they're not distributed everywhere across the country so obviously we need other other systems but injection schemes that maximize storage and limit gas cycling are are well within our capabilities now and we can do that lots of interesting engineering problems to be sorted out there but but we know a lot about how to do this next slide and an important question I think in terms of using all of this is is to what extent does that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions if you're producing oil burning that obviously emits CO2 so uh so it's important to ask whether the amount of CO2 that might be stored during enhanced order recovery makes a difference and if you just take some typical assumptions of emissions from burning a barrel of oil of the amount of CO2 that's ultimately stored at the end of the recovery process and how much of conventional oil that might offset then the the mean greenhouse gas reduction is about 63% although there was a big range depending on the oil so with some adjustment of processes to make them less efficient to store more CO2 you could get close to offsetting the CO2 emissions from the oil so it does have lower emissions but almost certainly not zero next slide so the dissolution part in brine is pretty well understood as well these are some simulation results that we did with my students so looking at the instability that's that's produced when you have that that CO2 at the top dissolving in the water and then the dense water falling down it does mix things on a convective timescale but but unfortunately that timescale is still hundreds to thousands of years to dissolve all the CO2 so that makes the point that we really need to retain have good seal rocks and so that will be part of part of the characterization of any potential site next slide please one last point if you take a molecule of methane out of a natural gas reservoir or a shale and oxidize it to CO2 you can put it back in the same spot and have volume left over because the molar density of CO2 is always larger than that of methane and that's true even in the absorbed adsorb systems as well so in principle you can take the CO2 out of a I'm sorry take the methane out of a natural gas reservoir oxidize it in a power plant and put it back without without exceeding the pressure of the original system so so we should be thinking more about storing in depleted gas fields as one way to to accomplish the the requirements next slide please so let me say at the end here a little bit about CO2 utilization other than EOR the if you think about what we use at scales that are consistent with the scales of making CO2 through burning fuels well obviously one of those is fuel so if you could go back and make this whole thing circular then then that would be a good thing unfortunately of course it takes lots of energy to do this and I mean lots and in order to do that we would really need to have very large quantities of for example solar electricity you could do that at a couple of cents a kilowatt hour you could make you have room both thermodynamically and and cost-wise to make another conversion with some efficiency that's less than a hundred percent in my days at DOE we did a series of cost projections which suggested that that the two to three cents a kilowatt hour for solar pv is is within reach and we have a shot at doing that so if you have excess power then of course storing that power as a liquid fuel is a an important one may be one potential energy storage system that might make some sense construction materials we also make use at very large scales so cement offers potential opportunities at scale chemicals are smaller all of these have cost competitiveness issues now john mentioned the biofuels option that is certainly one option you know you can think of this is is what we might really like to have is a a system for capturing co2 out of the air it should use solar energy and it would be very nice if it would self-assemble you say no wait we have those they're called plants and and so the biological systems are actually the they're really the the only ones that that that that do the job at very large scale right now but of course enhancing those in ways that that do additional capture is a non-trivial exercise as john illustrated pretty well so so cost competitiveness here matters all the way along there are lots of options and we're going to need all of them next slide please so here for example this is a kind of a imaginary well fantasy version might be a better description of using lots of solar and and wind power to make low carbon electricity lots of electrochemistry maybe photo electrochemistry with light involved or thermal transformations as well with good catalysts in order to make fuels and use those for transportation and the whole thing is is circular and you can see the biomass part of this as well that it takes lots of components and lots of elements lots of opportunities for research so let me next slide please next slide there we go I just said that in terms of co2 markets now I really already said this that the only big one is enhanced or recovery some of that is natural co2 so the part that's reducing emissions is really smaller beverages and food industry uses are there too but they're really quite small and of the of the big large scale ccs process is operating now most of them are for enhanced or recovery and only a few involve awkward for injection so and I really said all this already so go to the next slide please there we go so let me close with just a kind of a short list of obvious r&d opportunities really at the top of the list is lower cost capture lots of advanced chemistries and materials are under investigation we need to do that and work hard hybrid capture systems like the power plant I described are a possibility co-optimizing you are in co2 storage to improve storage and reduce costs lower cost monitoring I didn't really talk about this but if we're going to do large-scale co2 injection over long periods of time we're going to need to monitor what happens basalts and shales of storage formations are much well less well described than conventional sedimentary rocks we need to work on costs of characterization need to pay attention to induced seismicity this is something else I didn't talk about but if you inject lots of big quantities of fluid with high pressure you you create the potential for seismicity in some systems so understanding when that happens and what to do about it it's important we need to go well beyond power generation metals and cements are the big obvious targets there using electrochemistry and thermal chemistry to do co2 reduction has lots of potential interest again if the energy supply is sufficient and then improving the various agricultural practices and other processes that you build soil carbon or use biological systems is a bigger opportunity area as well so next slide so next there we go so let me just conclude you know the portfolio of CCS technologies is sufficiently developed that that deployment at scale is is far enough like to is feasible I will say the steps laid out by Cindy and Nigel as as to what might it take to money of work to be done but you know we can do this if we choose to it has to be one of a wide-ranging portfolio and that portfolio should have a spectrum of primary energy resources transformations and uses needs to be as diversified as we can make it with a big strong r&d part at the upstream end lots of r&d on capture hybrid technologies negative emissions we really need the full range director capture I think is technically doable but it's going to have to be less costly than if we're going to do that at scale and we just need to keep at this Cindy I think said it pretty well we we need all the technologies where we have plus some more we need to invent so let's get together and get on with it thank you very much Lynn thank you very much what I we have a question on our on our chat but it's a broader question I think I would I think we'll it might be a good one to kick off our our kind of kind of discussion with all the speakers so I can before I get to that let me just inquire if folks have some specific because Lynn had a real strong technology focus and are there any any specific technology questions and that people like to pose feel free to raise your hand and in this on the feature and we'll call on you also as I'm as the committee knows I sometimes and put the committee members on the spot so I'm not opposed to doing that as well and so anyone any any kind of questions for Lynn or what we can we said we we can we kind of Bridget let me Bridget has a question go your floor is yours Bridget awesome thank you yeah Lynn I had a question about the supercriticals to power plants integrated with with methane production I was just wondering is that you know do you know is that still kind of a theoretical technology possibility or are there any pilots of that so far anywhere that might be demonstrating that there's one there there is a kind of a 50 megawatt demonstration scale plant that's that's in testing outside Houston run by net power so it's a it's it's beyond the the theoretician and lab scale kinds of things but not yet at commercial commercial scale you know all the components have the some element of testing we know how to do air separation that's been all the time the combustor you know I've heard it described as a trying to to keep a candle lint a lit while you're blowing us a an extinguisher right passive the fire extinguisher right passive that's what all that co2 is so the have to design the combustor to keep the the stream stable but but but they've been able to do that the co2 turbine is again lots of work going on in a variety of versions of those and they would have lots of other applications if if that technology works there's some materials issues but they look they look solvable and that reduces the size of the turbines a lot so and then the downstream thermal handling and compression those are all technologies that are in hand so so I think there's a there's a pretty good chance that if they can meet the cost targets that there's an opportunity here thanks Bridget I think what we'll do is just in the interest we'll kind of make this open this up more broadly we have a couple other questions coming in on the on the chat and let me just so we don't lose it as this rolls up here a lot of Martin has had asked a question and this all open it Lynn you can kick off since you were the speaker but we'll open it to all the all the presenters to respond have you looked at the environmental risk of the co2 capture and storage process what are the risks associated with the process on the chances of the co2 release from the geological formations and parentheses rock fracture from added pressure if it is a saline formation and should some form of reservoir pressure management be included in the project and just as the moderator let me add because the national academies has done some work on induced seismicity that that maybe that that would be a something else that that that John or Elizabeth might want to comment on so with that let me let me turn it to the various presenters will let Lynn respond first and then and then you guys can move between all of you yes absolutely the potential environmental impacts are are a very important part of thinking about any any project and and the the pressure management will be part of any project as well we they're kind of two aspects of that one is the the potential for induced seismicity but the other is just to making sure that you protect the seals and and keep all that in place a typical kind of storage system is one where it's not just one layer of seal do you have many layers of low permeability rocks over a typical storage site so it's not it it's not quite as risky as it might sound if you just think about a fin seal layer but nevertheless characterizing it and and designing it and monitoring pressure and being careful about hydraulic fracturing those are all important parts of it we if if we choose sites carefully and operate these big industrial processes in a way that that we know how to do then then the risk of leakage is quite low except with the potential for well failures you know if a co2 storage site is going to kind of leak it's going to be because the some aspect of a well failed we know again how to build wells that don't leak and how to fix them if there's an issue but again it requires just a careful design and careful operations all the way along these will be big systems and we want to operate them safely John do you want to add anything no this is Elizabeth you know they did the new seismicity report and I think this this really flows into that one very well yeah I can just add the report that came out in 2012 2013 one of the big concerns the committee raised one of their big findings was of all the energy technologies where you're injecting fluids into the surface the one where they the committee was particularly concerned because it is the newest and and perhaps not as at that time as well as well developed as as injection related to oil and gas extraction thermal energy and so forth and that was this potential for induced seismicity from CO2 injection in part because of the volumes that we were talking about that we want to just cluster and the lack of understanding a fundamental aspect of the substance so it really got back to a couple of things Lynn mentioned them and that's really characterizing the reservoirs the intended reservoirs very very well so that we know as much about the properties of those reservoirs as we can and monitoring and monitoring and monitoring and I think that's something because of the focus on some of the seismicity in say for example in Oklahoma some of the work in Canada elsewhere in the United States that the advances in in monitoring pressure monitoring and so forth and understanding what some of those relationships are as far as potentially triggering small events and if those events could lead to ruptures the understanding is has really increased over the last you know eight to ten years but it is something that that's that has to be careful for the the plans for any of these large-scale sequestration activities yeah I could say one more thing about that they the cases where there have been larger earthquake events induced by injection have almost all been related to water disposal deep in deep formations that are not too far from the crystal and basement rocks where there were existing faults that got activated by the deep injection so that's that's a different setting than most of the ones that we're thinking about for for co2 storage but on the other hand we're talking about big volumes now in places like oil and gas reservoirs where you've taken lots of fluid out of them that's one thing but in deep salient offers may very well require us to to remove water and then that's creates another disposal issue so there there are real issues to be thought about and care in and dealt with in careful engineering designs of these posts Cindy and I told you want to add anything on this because I know on the environment always public acceptance that was a very significant part of the discussion and the NP in the dual challenge report yes Cindy we need Eric we need to unmute Cindy okay yeah sorry that was a lot of heroic to agree and I think I would just support you know what one of the things that we found you know Elizabeth said it nicely is you know that the monitoring especially not just an original monitoring but longer term is is going to be critical to really demonstrating that we can securely store co2 geologically for the long term Nigel anything you want to add no definitely there's I think there's been some good comments about the end wrap at all I think that was part of of course the discussion around having a consistent you know standardized tool to look at risks qualify understand the risks associated with large scale storage and and certainly the DOE and other partners have been working on the the the end wrap tool in order to do that which includes seismicity evaluation just part of the required site characterization process and okay thank you let me let I'll go to the the chat line and I'm gonna there's a couple one is a question and and I think we might you know I think we want us to be an interactive discussion like our meetings so if the speakers would like the the the the the person posing the Musud Aliyah I forgive me on my pronunciation but but if there may be some opportunity for it to dialogue dialogue to put this in context to CC us but let me just pose the question any insight would be appreciated on is there any pilot project for geological storage of hydrogen in the US hmm uh this Lynn I I'm not aware of any pilot scale project there has been some work on on analysis for example one way to reduce emissions of from natural gas power plant use is to to blend some presumably renewably produced hydrogen as a an energy storage mechanism and to put that into the gas stream if the concentration of of hydrogen is not too high current pipelines and storage systems could handle that but I'm not aware of anybody actually doing that maybe others could comment on that yeah it's Nigel here so the world's largest hydrogen supply network is along the US Gulf Coast operated by air products and I think Likid actually is part of that sort of operates the world's largest hydrogen storage facility now it's located in Beaumont Texas and it's a salt cavern so uh so yeah it's actually done at commercial scales or already of course there's some great work being done by the DOE there's a hydrogen effort in the DOE looking of course at you know scaling to go into large scale geological storage of hydrogen as well and of course as as hydrogen you know potential green or blue hydrogen sources you know is investigated further as its role as a clean burning fuel which of course for the blue hydrogen the context of CCUS of course CCUS enables you know basically a decarbonization of of fossil fuels through reforming to hydrogen so thanks Nigel um let's see Neil Haver mail you've posted kind of more of a comment let me just give you an opportunity to uh if you wanted to uh present that into the discussion or had a had something to put forward to the the the group please let me give you a chance to do that a kind of while we're away as as a soil okay are you on Neil no this is john hey um what i would say soil carbon in the negative emissions technologies report was one of those motherhood and apple pie type pollution you know you're not only storing carbon but you're improving soil quality and improving soil quality by re you know refurbishing soils to have the carbon basis that they had when we originally started using these soils so you know when you talk about double benefits it's it's hard to say these are permanently sequestered carbon there's certainly a turnover and there's a read missions over you know a 50 year 100 year time frame but in terms of things that we should be doing right off and that has a fairly low cost and has some collateral benefits soil carbon was was an easy winner thanks john appreciate it the comment there and apparently neils left the car left the had to get off the webinar so that's why he posted that and it's available in the chat chat place if anyone wants to read it do we um let me just look oh we have a i don't know i'm i mistake i don't think that's uh uh i'm just looking quick to see if we any other other hands up so let me let me kind of call on the committee any any comments or input from our our committee members i guess you need to raise your hand so so eric knows to unmute you elizabeth do you have anything you want to add before we kind of wrap things up here the only i guess the only question that i had and and there was uh just going i always go back to the maps and the maps that i think that you you showed nijal in part of your talk and then the maps that you had as well then in yours and obviously the focus for a lot of the discussion for the geologic storage is in the in the onshore potential and i know some work in the in the us has been done in the on the continental shelf but that that doesn't seem to have been the focus obviously there's some sites elsewhere globally that that that has been has been investigated and in some with some success offshore norway and so on i just wondered if you could speak toward the the offshore potential how much that has or hasn't been brought into the discussion and where that may be headed if if anywhere i'll kick it off um this is cindy uh certainly you know in in our study we saw a lot of potential for onshore storage because we have a a quote nijal a vast geologic endowment but there's also certainly a lot of potential uh in plastic reservoirs offshore uh in the gulf coast waters that are well calibrated and you know sort of the the physics are there's there's probably more certainty on the the rock characterizations and the the fluid dynamics of the of the system than other offshore parts of of the us um so we see a lot of potential there would have to be a lot of policy uh work uh in the outer continental shelf slandacks some some changes in terms of the ability to uh store co2 um from sources other than than coal um but there there is certainly potential we find it quite attractive it might be um you know easier in terms of stakeholder engagement um another opportunity that we find quite interesting are the state waters uh especially in you know sort of texas in louisiana and um just a shout out for the bureau of economic geology here in texas they've done some outstanding you know sort of science and analysis to uh look at the feasibility of of offshore storage in the state waters and what's attractive about those is is that's in in texas at least it's the 10 miles directly offshore from the u.s gulf coast so uh you know transportation would not be a huge factor it would be um something you'd certainly have to um work on but it's it's not as extreme as say piping something 50 or 100 miles offshore into the deeper water gulf mexico so we found it very exciting but there's definitely some regulatory and um uh policy work and uh reduction of uncertainty that would need to be applied to both state and federal waters before we could progress and uh yeah and certainly you know so there's been um you know the DOE has been um you know helping um some of those offshore assessments uh cindy mentioned definitely the gulf coast work um with uh with with BEG there's been some of course southeast offshore work um in and around the the other states along the gulf coast and down to florida and then um up the the east coast and then even further up into the north and um offshore mid-atlantic offshore um i think the work was done there by uh patel um as well so there's been a lot of studies that have been going on funded DOE um to uh to indeed map and assess and pull those assessments into uh to the onshore capacity uh work so thank you very much i mean we have a question from debora uh peacock she's one of our our committee members so debora well i think you'll end up with the last question here okay or it's more of a comment i found this really really helpful um i'm in new mexico and new mexico tech just received 17.5 million dollars from DOE to um figure out if they can do carbon sequestration up in the saline reservoirs in the northern part of new mexico but that's it's really exciting um for our state to be working on this okay thanks debora and and let me let me do this then and just as a quick wrap up and and we'll let each of our panelists take about 30 seconds to if they wish to give any concluding uh uh thought or remark so we'll just go through down according to their speaking so cindy do you have any any concluding you know insight or thought you want to leave everybody with oh no i just want to say thank you very much uh we we had to skim over a lot of materials so uh encourage you to to check out the um npc website for for further details and uh and please follow up with with any of us with any further questions you might have and thanks again for having us niju thanks jam jim so uh so no yeah it's pleasure to be here and again work with cindy get the opportunities to work with cindy um the rest of the team um so yeah we produced a lot of materials and uh we really want them to be useful and used um so yeah indeed please encourage people to go on to uh to the npc website for that um gaffney client we've been involved in about uh 65 cc us screening feasibility studies for clients over the last two decades including assignments for some of the the industry's key players um so that that includes of course technology development capability building efforts such as this and definitely a pleasure to to work with everybody on this i think it's a differentiating report thanks john yeah i just want to say thanks for including me in this and be able to talk about some of the stuff that we're working with i at the academies in terms of of these related issues and then it was of course it was interesting to hear about the npcc report and link up with lin so it's it's a night it was a nice position i enjoyed it thank you thanks john lin and and i should have mentioned in lin's bio lin is a member of the academy of engineers so lin any any uh wrap up well i would just say that that uh uh thanks to the fellow speakers uh for doing a good job of describing all of this based on all of what they said i think we can do this so let's get to work let's uh let's get on with it thanks very much thank thanks lin elizabeth i'll turn if you have some before you uh you know if you have any concluding comments before i kind of wrap it up and uh so just mention that maybe the committee members could stay on for about a few minutes uh uh that would be great yeah thank you john i'll let you the final word here i will just chime in again with my sincere thanks to our excellent speakers uh there were some really great uh presentations in this fairly condensed period of time and i hope you some of you saw the in the chat uh a lot of uh thanks from from the participants too for for the great presentations uh thanks to the committee and thanks to you jem for your great work as a moderator and chair and again to eric for his work to keep the entire operation running smoothly um just wanted to mention again we'll try to post the presentations uh including the the audio recording from the webinar in roughly seven to ten days and we'll let you all know when that's up on the website and i just wanted to say thanks again everyone for attending today this is a great a great session really enjoyed it thanks lizabeth i'll add my thanks to the speakers to cindy and nigeal and john and lin and thank you all for everyone attending and all your great participation i think it's always kind of fun to watch these chats evolving and and i think we had as many answers coming out of the participants as we did the various uh people and i think that's a very exciting uh a way to hopefully create a community in this space so we're that's one of our roles as a committee so we hopefully that that's what we're doing we will be having a meeting in the autumn that will be a public meeting that i anticipate will continue this discussion on on on energy resources and an energy transition and likely to have some focus on critical minerals and critical materials which i think many people also will will will have a strong interest in so again thank you for joining and uh uh uh we will adjourn the formal public part of the meeting again now i'll uh i'll we'll spend just a couple minutes as a committee getting ready for our committee meeting tomorrow so thanks again thank you everyone