Carbon Capture Costs: FEED & pre-FEED Cost Reports

CO₂ capture from the SMR flue gas stacks located in Plant 01 and Plant 09 of the facility. Combined flue gases from each of the two sources would be collected and transported by ducts to the carbon capture facility. The design of the capture facility is 2,100 – 2,200 tpd of CO₂, including the CO₂ captured from the SMRs and additional flue gas generated from the steam boiler supplying the CCS unit. The CCS unit is to be designed for a minimum 30% plant turndown, this is to ensure the operation of CCS unit when flue gas from Plant 01 is the only feed to the CCS unit. For the purposes of the study the carbon capture facility design, including flue gas pretreatment and downstream CO₂ compression and dehydration, is provided by licensor. Hatch designed the flue gas transportation from the stacks to the Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) unit battery limit, flue gas pressure boosting and Balance of Plant (BOP) which includes all the utility and offsite systems

A Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) study was undertaken to design an advanced CO2 Capture Unit (CCU) to produce 1000 tonnes per day of CO2 from the exhaust of three Once-Through Steam Generators (OTSG’s) at Devon Energy’s Jackfish 1 thermal in-situ operations and estimate the capital expenditure for the facilities within +/-15% accuracy. The process utilizes HTC Purenergy Carbon Capture Technology to capture CO2 from the OTSG exhaust gas using an aqueous chemical solvent in an absorber tower, after which the CO2-loaded solvent is passed to a stripper tower where the CO2 is released and the solvent regenerated. The study excludes downstream CO2 compression, dehydration, transportation and storage.

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 8-stage compression to 1,500 psig.