Carbon Capture Costs: FEED & pre-FEED Cost Reports

This report summarizes Trimeric’s Phase II work under the SSEB ECO2S project in Kemper County, Mississippi, focused on Task 7 – Infrastructure Development. Trimeric evaluated CO₂ compression and dehydration costs, compared pumping versus compression for dense phase CO₂, and developed pipeline transport cost estimates. Using experience from past projects, screening-level designs and cost estimates were prepared for a nominal 1 MTPY case and scaled to site-specific conditions. Results showed that increasing discharge pressure modestly raises costs, with pumping offering slight savings and operational flexibility but added complexity. Pipeline costs were estimated using NPC benchmarks, while compression and dehydration costs were scaled for Plant Daniel, Plant Miller, and Kemper. Overall, capital costs were roughly three times equipment costs, with electricity for compression as the dominant operating expense. The costs are associated with Six-stage compression directly to 2,050 psig

Analysis sets the design and cost-estimating basis for evaluating pulp and board mills with and without CCS. Two base cases are considered: a market pulp mill and an integrated pulp and board mill. Six CCS cases are evaluated, capturing CO₂ from the recovery boiler, multi-fuel boiler, lime kiln, or their combinations. The mills are assumed to be energy independent, with black liquor and bark burned to produce steam and electricity, and excess electricity exported to the grid. The CO₂ capture system uses post-combustion MEA technology with a 90% capture rate, and if on-site electricity is insufficient, an auxiliary boiler firing forest residues will supply the additional energy. Capture of CO2 in both Kraft & Multi-boilers

Studied the replacement of the SMR units with auto-thermal reforming (ATR) technology. ATRs produce a high concentration CO₂ stream, instead of low concentration combustion flue gases, that is more efficient to capture for sequestration. H₂ production from the unit may also be oversized to provide H₂ as a fuel source for the ATR if target overall CO₂ recovery of the facility is not achieved with the replacement of the SMR alone. The facility capacity is based on the total H₂ production requirements of the existing Plant 01 and Plant 09 ammonia synthesis units. 3 | P a g e Public – Approved for external distribution The scope for the study involves the SMR unit replacement with an integrated ATR and downstream syngas purification including CO₂ capture. The project scope also includes an Air Separation Unit (ASU) to supply oxygen to the ATR unit.