CCS Coal Projects

Learn more @ www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org
May 2012

Coal:
Closer Look at CCS
Zpryme Smart Grid Insights Presents a Special Report Series (Part 3 of 3):

Copyright © 2012 Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC All rights reserved.

Special Report Series | Coal: Closer Look at CCS (Part 3 of 3)

“We have a responsibility and a golden
opportunity to act, energy-related CO2 emissions
are at historic highs; under current policies, we
estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions
would increase by a third by 2020, and almost
double by 2050. This would likely send global
temperatures at least 6°C higher. Such an
outcome would confront future generations with
significant economic, environmental and energy
security hardships - a legacy that I know none of
us wishes to leave behind.”

1 www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org Zpryme Smart Grid Insights | May 2012

Source: Richard H. Jones, IEA deputy executive director ambassador, April 2012


Table of Contents

CCS: In Brief.......................................................................... 3
CCS: Regulatory & Legal Issues ........................................ 4
United States .................................................................... 4
Globally ............................................................................. 4
CCS: Economics of Transportation .................................. 5
United States .................................................................... 5
Globally ............................................................................. 5
CCS: Environmental Policy Concerns ............................. 6
United States: ................................................................... 6
Globally: ............................................................................ 6
CCS: The Next Generation Work force ........................... 6
CCS: Capture ...................................................................... 7
CCS: Sequestration ............................................................. 8
CCS: Current Projects ......................................................... 8
United States: ................................................................... 8
Globally: ............................................................................ 9
CCS: Bottom Line .............................................................. 10
Q&A: Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Energy Institute,
University of Texas at Austin ............................................ 11




CCS: In Brief Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy have
encouraged further CCS deployment and development.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is the process Research and development has focused on advanced
by which carbon dioxide is captured from coal fired technology programs such as coal to liquid technology,
power plants and stored in either underground, offshore hydrogen turbines, advanced combustion, gasification
(below the ocean bed) or in mineral deposits, thus technology, underground coal gasification, solid oxide
preventing it from being released into the air. The process fuel cells, and hydrogen from coal technologies. In
involves three stages: addition, new regulatory emission standards as natural gas
facilities for coal-fired utility plants, as well as the
(1) Capture of CO2 at point sources (such as power governmental dedication to furthering the CCS field has
plants) and compression of the gas, solidified the nation’s commitment to further development
(2) Transportation through pipelines and of the Carbon Capture and Sequestration field.
(3) Sequestration (geological, marine, or mineral)
Globally:
Although long-term costs associated with CCS may be
cost-competitive within each part of the process, different Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) was discussed
technologies exist with varying costs based on their level of at mandatory at COP-17 in Durban, South Africa to
development and maturity, elaborated below. CCS is an reduce worldwide emission standards, especially in
emerging technology which has still uncertain costs. While developing countries like China and India. CCS will now
feasibility studies and pilot projects have been be eligible for carbon credits under the Clean
undertaken, large-scale commercial demonstration Development Mechanism, a program funded by
projects have not yet been carried out, although some developed countries to offset emissions in developing
are in planning stages. Cost uncertainty also exists around countries. However, this proclamation comes at a time
site-specific variability. when more CCS pilots are closing, rather than opening.

United States: In October, the Swedish utility Vattenfall has cancelled the
proposed $2 billion CCS pilot project in Germany due to
The United States currently has the largest number of concerns about environmental safety, as well as problems
large-scale CCS projects and the largest number of fully- with the regulatory framework. Another proposed $1.5
operational projects worldwide, 25 out of 74 current and billion pilot in Scotland through Scottish power was also
potential projects in 2011 (Global CCS Institute). Funding canceled due to project costs.i The Schwarze Project in
from sources such as the Department of Energy, the the EU was also closed December 5.
National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the



CCS: Regulatory & Legal Issues much of the CCS regulation is performed on the provincial
level. Most of the CCS projects are operating in Alberta
where several provincial regulatory boards oversee CCS
United States:
operations, and laws such as the Alberta Climate Change
and Emissions Act explicitly mention CCS, while the CCS
In the United States on the federal level, the majority of
Act establishes long term liability. In addition, Alberta
regulation on CCS coal production lies with the
announced it would be conducting a regulatory
Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Air Act
framework assessment to be sure the CCS projects would
places the health of the general public as a priority and
be operated in the safest way possible.
requires the EPA to develop and enforce regulations to
prevent exposure to airborne contaminants. In January
The EU has issued a number of directives that are
2011, it was expanded to include Greenhouse Gases,
developed to govern Carbon Dioxide storage, integrated
including Carbon Dioxide, and the EPA began issuing
pollution prevention, and Carbon Dioxide transportation.
permits to control Greenhouse Gases. Many states have
Once the directives were established, the member states
internal regulations that govern the release of greenhouse
have a period of time to modify the directives and institute
gases including carbon dioxide, including California and
them as laws in their area. However, a lack of regulation
Oregon who regulate greenhouse gases produced by
in areas such as Germany has halted pending CCS
coal-fired plants, while other states, such as Illinois and
projects, even in advanced stages of regulation. The
Montana require CCS to be used by coal- fired plants in
Netherlands are also facing a number of regulatory
their states. In March 2012, the EPA proposed the first
challenges, as laws have not been significantly modified
National Carbon pollution standards for the nation, where
to allow for successful sequestration. In the UK, it is
all new plants would be held to emission standards.
expected that most of the carbon storage will be offshore,
so most of the laws that govern CCS are in regards to
Globally:
offshore storage. The Energy Bill and the Energy Act
establish a regulatory framework for CCS projects with
Canada has a well-developed regulatory framework for
focus on offshore storage. In addition, the Energy Act
existing oil and gas regulations and has been adapting
builds on the Petroleum Act of 1998 and the Electricity Act
them to CCS. In addition, Natural Resources Canada and
of 1989 and would now require that all new large coal
the Department of the Environment provide additional
fired plants demonstrate capture readiness. Norway
regulations. CEPA has classified Carbon Dioxide as a toxin
primarily regulates the permits assigned to CCS projects
and had regulations such as the Reduction of Carbon
because carbon dioxide has been classified as a
Dioxide Emissions from coal Fired Generation of Electricity
pollutant. In addition, the Norwegian Greenhouse Gas
Regulations as well as developed emissions performance
Emission Trading Act established establishes limits on
standards to govern it on the federal level. However,
greenhouse gas emissions, further regulating the field.



Australia has a very well developed framework for CSS United States:
governance with six key areas of focus: certification
processes, property rights, monitoring, long-term liability, There are existing CO2 pipelines in the US today of 2500km
financial issues, and incentivisation. Dating back as far as that transport 50 million metric tons of CO2 annually.1
2006, the subsequent laws govern both the onshore and Transportation costs range from $1 to $5 per ton of CO2
offshore storage of greenhouse gases, and processing of transported 250 km, contingent upon the pipeline’s flow
coal fired plants. rate.2

China has established CCS as a priority, especially Globally:
considering that coal is the main form of electricity
generation for the country, which opens on average one In Europe and Asia, there are established pipelines in the
new coal fired plant a week. However, the country is in interior of the continent. A complex infrastructure
the developing stages of CCS use and technology, thus transports carbon dioxide from processing locations to
lacking significant regulations in the field. storage facilities or to transport vessels for offshore
deposition. In the future, it is likely this system will evolve to
CCS: Economics of Transportation form clusters, which will then utilize feeder pipelines to for
larger networks, thus increasing the efficiency and
decreasing the cost of transportation. In addition,
Transportation of captured CO2 is mainly done through
advanced shipping systems are being developed for
pipelines; however, shipping is an alternative transport
offshore storage, which is prevalent in countries like the
method; both processes are technologically mature
United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Norway. In
today.
Rotterdam, rail systems transport the processed carbon
dioxide to large vessels which then transport the gas to
The cost structure for the transportation phase is almost
offshore facilities. As technology advances, these vessels
entirely associated with fixed infrastructure i.e. construction
become larger and have integrated online injection
costs (materials, equipment, installation, labor). Operation
facilities to allow for ease in storing the carbon dioxide in
and maintenance costs are a relatively small portion of
offshore facilities. In addition, utilizing cargo ships allows
the investment in transportation. The cost is mostly a
for changes in storage location and offers increased
function of distance – and transport onshore is less
flexibility. As the integrated hub approach to storage and
expensive than transporting to an offshore destination. In
either case shipments are subject to regulatory filing fees,
insurance costs, right-of-way costs, and contingencies 1www.mckinseyquarterly.com/wrapper.aspx?ar=2247&story=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mc

kinseyquarterly.com%2fWhat_is_carbon_capture_and_storage_2247%3fpagenum%3d1%23int
allowances. eractive_carbon_capture&pgn=whis08_exhibit
2 fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~kolstad/HmPg/papers/CCS%20Costs%20Latrobe.pdf




the integrated carrier options are more fully developed, an earlier development phase, such as China and India.
worldwide transport of carbon dioxide will become more Many areas have absolutely no regulation in place, such
efficient and affordable. as Malaysia and India. However, the EU has created
programs where more developed nations are able to
CCS: Environmental Policy Concerns invest in these lesser developed counterparts to allow for
faster utilization of clean coal technology. To be truly
successful, more uniform standards need to be developed
United States:
across the world that establishes emissions standards,
especially in the newly constructed plants in places like
Of key concern in the United States are the newly
China. A collaboration of countries, as demonstrated in
announced environmental policy regulations. 106 coal
United States and China joint ventures will allow China to
plants are predicted to close since 2010 due to the cost of
take advantage of the more developed technology of
environmental improvements. While these standards are
that in the United States.
beneficial for the overall environment, they are cost
prohibitive in many cases. Other concerns have been
expressed by environmental groups about the effects of CCS: The Next Generation Work force
CCS technology. Greenpeace has launched a “Coal is
Dirty” campaign where it explains its position that events There are several workforce concerns as new CCS
such as the spill of coal ash sludge in December 2011 in technology is employed. The industry has evolved from
Tennessee and carbon dioxide leaks from naturally fairly straight forward coal burning facilities, to employing
sequestered sites and their damage to the surrounding very advanced laboratories where coal is burned in
environment should be closely monitored. Clearly both oxygen rich environment to allow for the most
sides of the issue have very differing opinions and the concentrated form of carbon dioxide to be removed. The
environmental policy decisions of the United States must skill level of operators to run these facilities has also
examine both the past and potential failures of current increased with these changes. In addition, the number of
policies, as well as its effect on the coal industry as a workers will shift, from many lower skilled positions, to fewer
whole in the future. highly skilled positions. However, as these plants grow with
the new technologies, the number of highly skilled workers
Globally: is likely to grow. To be able to meet these challenges, the
coal industry has to offer skill advancement opportunities,
Globally the focus on environmental policy is of a different where they can groom the workforce to meet the
focus. The environmental standards of Europe are more changing needs. In addition, several universities, such as
stringent than those of the United States, but it also the University of California San Diego offer advanced
understands the impact of their close neighbors that are in environment technology programs, where engineering



students are able to design cleaner technologies to guide A study completed by the International Energy Agency
clean energy in the future. The education these students (IEA) in 2011 studying 50 CO2 capture installations at power
obtain is priceless and can provide leaders for the future plants found the capital cost and levelized cost of energy
development of CCS, as well as develop better and safer is approximately $105 per megawatt hour for coal-fired
storage and/or utilization opportunities for carbon dioxide. plants. On average, the cost of CO2 avoided is $55 per ton
The industry must become more forward looking, spurring of CO2 (using a pulverize coal plant without CCS as a
their own innovation instead of being controlled by reference point).5 The overnight costs of power plants with
stronger standards. The future is guaranteed to hold CCS in the OECD regions are $3,800 per kilowatt hour,
higher emissions requirements. By looking to employ better approximately 74% higher than plants without capture
solutions now, instead of being affected by changing technology.6 It was also found that none of the capture
requirements, the industry can thrive and lead the way to technologies outperformed any of the others in cost and
a more carbon-free coal future. To do that, it must performance.
employ the highest skilled workers possible, and transmit its
employees with this knowledge, thus being able to The same 2011 IEA study identified post-combustion CO2
develop, construct, operate and maintain future coal capture as to be the most researched and cost-effective
technology. option for gas-fired plants. The capital cost and levelized
cost of energy is $102 per megawatt hour and the costs of
CCS: Capture CO2 avoided are $80 per ton of CO2 (using a natural gas
combined cycle as a comparison). In this case, overnight
Capturing CO2 emissions from the point source has the costs are $1,700 per kilowatt hour; 82% higher than plants
highest associated costs of CCS; representing 70 percent without capture technology. On average, these costs are
of the total cost.3 These costs include the compression of higher in OECD countries, and cheaper in countries like
carbon dioxide for transport to the storage site. Capture China.
can take place pre-combustion, post-combustion or by
Oxyfuel combustion (only the latter two will work for Available technology allows 85-95% of the CO2 produced
retrofitting). For the capture phase, industrial separation to be captured. However, CCS use does impose an
and combustion techniques such as CO2 scrubbers and energy penalty, requiring 10-40% additional energy (for
Oxyfuel are relatively mature, while technology such as air Natural Gas Combined Cycle plants, Pulverized Coal
capture is primarily in a research phase.4 plants, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants) to
store the captured CO2 than a non-CCS plant.7

5 www.iea.org/papers/2011/costperf_ccs_powergen.pdf
3 /tmp/PreviewPasteboardItems/Costs of CCS Wiki Page (dragged).pdf 6 Ibid.
4 www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pdf 7 Ibid.




The cost structure associated with the capture phase is through EOR can be sold, offsetting the cost of storage
split between capital costs and operational costs at 60 and producing a profit. If oil prices are low, however, EOR
percent and 40 percent respectively. 8 may not be profitable. The cost of storage in depleted oil
and gas wells ranges from $0.5-12 per ton of carbon
CCS: Sequestration dioxide injected. The cost for storage in onshore deep
saline aquifers ranges from $0.2-5.1 per ton of carbon
Sequestration involves taking the compressed CO2 and dioxide injected, while the cost for storage in offshore
storing it for a geological timescale. Storage strategies for aquifers ranges from $0.5-30 per ton of carbon dioxide
CO2 fall into three categories: geological, marine and injected.14
mineral. Of these, geological is the most mature while
mineral sequestration is still in a research phase.11 For marine storage from a fixed pipeline, the cost ranges
Geological storage sites include deep saline formations, from $5-30 per ton of carbon dioxide injected. This cost
oil/gas or unmineable coal beds (still in demonstration variability can be attributed to distance from the shoreline
phase).12 There are considerable cost uncertainties with all and the differing depths and conditions at which the
of these storage methods as none are currently performed injection needs to occur. For marine storage via ship, the
at scale. Captured CO2 can also be used for EOR, as cost ranges from $12-16 per ton of carbon dioxide
discussed above. Storage costs are split between capital injected. The cost range for ship-based injection is smaller
and operational investments: 80 percent of the cost of because costs do not increase with distance from the
storage is in capital; the remaining 20 percent is shoreline. 15 These costs are estimates based on research
associated with ongoing operations, monitoring and phases of projects – a demonstration project using marine
maintenance.13 storage has yet to be implemented.

EOR is the most mature of all of the storage technologies CCS: Current Projects
and its costs can range from -$99 (in the case of highly
successful EOR) to 67 per ton of carbon dioxide injected. United States:
This is largely dependent on the market price of oil at the
time of extraction. If oil prices are high, the oil extracted In the US, there is currently no economic incentive for
industry to capture carbon, as it adds additional cost. Sally
8 Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics. McKinsey & Company, McKinsey Benson, energy profession at Stanford elucidates this point:
Climate Change Initiative. 22 Sept. 2008.
11 www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pdf “It's really just a matter of money. If we had a price on
12

www.mckinseyquarterly.com/wrapper.aspx?ar=2247&story=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mc
carbon that was $50 a metric ton, carbon capture and
kinseyquarterly.com%2fWhat_is_carbon_capture_and_storage_2247%3fpagenum%3d1%23int
eractive_carbon_capture&pgn=whis08_exhibit
13 Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics. McKinsey & Company, McKinsey 14 www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf
Climate Change Initiative. 22 Sept. 2008. 15 Ibid.



storage would take off. But with no price on carbon in Globally:
sight, companies can only sustain a certain amount of
investment. So really the impediment is creating the IEA predicts that by 2050, 10% of CO2 emission reduction
incentive where people will pay that price for capturing related to energy will come from CCS globally.20 Many
carbon." 16 This could be changed by implementing an projects are currently operating that demonstrate the
economic incentive for plants to reduce emissions, such as enormous potential of the CCS technology worldwide.
a tax break or a fine for emissions above a certain level.
Perhaps one of the most known CCS projects is the
Scientists from the Midwest Geological Sequestration Sleipner Project, off the coast of Norway, ongoing since
Consortium, one of seven public-private partnerships 1996, where CO2 is being stored in an offshore saline
created by the Department of Energy to promote CO2, formation. 12 million tons of CO2 have been stored to
are currently injecting 1 million metric tons of CO2 into a date.21 The project has been successful in many regards
sandstone site in Illinois, a project which will take a year (a due to the Norwegian carbon tax implemented 20 years
coal plant on average emits 3 million metric tons of CO2 ago ($50 per metric ton).22 Injecting the CO2 offshore was
annually). The site has the potential to store 245.5 billion less expensive than paying the tax.
metric tons.17 This project will provide us the best estimate
of what sequestration will look like, practically, and is one In Alberta, Canada, $2 billion has been pledged to CCS
of the largest CCS projects to date and the first in the US. over a 15 year period, beginning in 2008. This is the largest
The CO2 is coming from a nearby ethanol refinery and will amount a government has dedicated to CCS projects to
arrive at the site via pipeline. date, and the project will store 4 million tons of CO2 by
2015 with a goal to store 140 metric tons by 2050.23 In
Emissions from ethanol are comprised almost completely Saskatchewan, the world’s largest CCS project is housed in
of CO2 so capture and compression costs are significantly Weyburn. The site will hold 20 million tons of CO2 used for
lower than with a coal-fired plant. It will be stored 7,000 EOR when completed.24 This site is now providing
feet underground.18 The Illinois Basin – Decatur Project cost evidence as to the long-term storage capacity of CCS.
is $96 billion dollars in total. There are currently 150 small- The site is now part of an $80 million international
scale projects being carried out in the United States.19 monitoring project investigated to determine if the CO2 is

20 www.iea.org/papers/2011/costperf_ccs_powergen.pdf
21 news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/benson-climate-change-120611.html
22 Ibid.
16 news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/benson-climate-change-120611.html 23
17 www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=869 www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Thomson+Redford+dogged+carbon+capture+plan/573
18 boingboing.net/2011/12/02/a-hole-in-the-ground.html 7238/story.html?cid=megadrop_story
19 summitcountyvoice.com/2011/11/28/climate-large-scale-carbon-capture-tried-in-illinois/ 24 www.co2captureandstorage.info/project_specific.php?project_id=98




bubbling up – so far it has been deemed safe.25 However, provide additional cost savings. Finally, the cost of
it is difficult to predict over time if the CO2 will stay in sequestering the concentrated carbon dioxide is also
place. expensive, and although several sites have been identified
for potential storage facilities, the number of approved
CCS: Bottom Line sites is still limited.

Unless national or international efforts focus on creating a As more improvements in the processes and technology
price on carbon, CCS is unlikely to be adopted in the near utilized through all parts of the CCS process advances,
term. The Coal Industry itself is opposing the forced from the processing at the coal fired utility plants, to
adoption of CCS technologies, as the cost of retrofitting transporting the gas to approved storage sites, the CCS
the currently operating coal facilities is prohibitive to technology will be more cost efficient, more readily
adoption. In fact, many facilities are citing these costs adopted, and utilized worldwide.
(specifically the costs of achieving the required higher
emissions standards) as the main reason for the plant
closures. Although new technologies are being
developed to lower the cost of these improvements, they
have not reached the point where they are affordable
and offer a high return on investment in the short term.
These costs are likely to be recouped over years, making
them less attractive. However, its use in EOR may become
more prevalent as the costs associated with coal increase.
More pilot projects are necessary in order to understand
the long-term costs and potential health and
environmental impacts of CCS.

Currently, the Global CCS Institute lists 74 large scale CCS
projects currently being operating or in various stages of
development. These projects will set the pace and
develop new technology as they advance. Additionally,
the modes of transportation are also evolving from an
inefficient system to a hub-based system, which will

25www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/cenovus-study-finds-co2-not-leaking-from-
ground/article2254078/



Q&A with
Q&A: Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, CCS. Practically, it will mean that no new coal fired
Energy Institute, University of power plant can be built, unless it has sufficient CCS
capability.
Texas at Austin
3. ZP: What environmental policy concerns are
DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH currently affecting CCS the most in the US?
Director, Energy Institute Dr. Orbach: The cost of CCS is the greatest concern in
University of Texas at Austin the U.S. It takes about a third of a power plant’s energy
to capture CO2, making it uneconomical unless there is
About Dr. Raymond L. Orbach: Created by the Energy Policy Act of an offset.
2005, Raymond Lee Orbach was nominated by President Bush to serve
as the first Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of 4. ZP: What should the energy industry look forward to
Energy (DOE). On May 26, 2006, Dr. Orbach was unanimously from the University of Texas Energy Institute in 2012?
confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn in as Under Secretary on June
1, 2006. Dr. Orbach received his Bachelor of Science degree in Physics
from the California Institute of Technology in 1956. He received his
Dr. Orbach: The Energy Institute is developing a process
Ph.D. degree in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley, in for sequestration that is much more efficient than
1960 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. current technologies, and includes an energy offset
that would substantially reduce the net cost of CCS.
1. ZP: What current technology trends are influencing
CCS in the US? About: Energy Institute, University of Texas at Austin
Dr. Orbach: The principal technological development is
The Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin
improvement of the “amine” liquids used to capture
(http://energy.utexas.edu/) was created to address the
CO2 from flue gas from coal fired power plants. This
most challenging energy issues facing society today. Our
development, led by Professor Gary Rochelle at UT
mission is to provide guidance in the pursuit of a new
Austin, operates at slightly higher temperatures, but
energy paradigm that is at once viable and
promises increased efficiency for CO2 capture.
sustainable. The Institute’s overarching goal is to alter the
trajectory of public discourse in a positive manner, as
2. ZP: What US regulatory and legal initiatives will have
exemplified in our credo – good policy based on good
the greatest impact on CCS in 2012/13?
science.
Dr. Orbach: The recent EPA rule on greenhouse gas
emissions will have a profound effect on



The Energy Institute’s formation is premised on the notion
that colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to
conduct independent and impartial scientific
research. This concept is illustrated in our approach to
research, in which we assemble inter-disciplinary teams of
faculty from schools and colleges across campus to
address complex energy issues in a comprehensive
manner. Our aim is to inject science- and fact-based
analysis into what is often a contentious dialogue, and in
so doing bring clarity to the debate that shapes public
policy on energy issues.

The Institute’s mission also includes the development of
interdisciplinary certificate and degree programs in Zpryme Credits
energy, to broaden the educational experience of Editor Managing Editor Research Lead
students in this critical field of study. Megan Dean Samarth Bahl Stefan Trifonov

Special Thanks To
Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Energy Institute,
Director The University of Texas at Austin

Disclaimer
These materials and the information contained herein are provided by Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC and are
intended to provide general information on a particular subject or subjects and is not an exhaustive treatment of
such subject(s). Accordingly, the information in these materials is not intended to constitute accounting, tax, legal,
investment, consulting or other professional advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as
the sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business. Before making any decision or taking any
action that might affect your personal finances or business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. These
materials and the information contained herein is provided as is, and Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC makes no
express or implied representations or warranties regarding these materials and the information herein. Without limiting
the foregoing, Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC does not warrant that the materials or information contained
herein will be error-free or will meet any particular criteria of performance or quality. Zpryme Research & Consulting,
LLC expressly disclaims all implied warranties, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, title, fitness
for a particular purpose, noninfringement, compatibility, security, and accuracy. Prediction of future events is
inherently subject to both known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to
vary materially. Your use of these and the information contained herein is at your own risk and you assume full
responsibility and risk of loss resulting from the use thereof. Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC will not be liable for any
special, indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages or any other damages whatsoever, whether in an
action of contract, statute, tort (including, without limitation, negligence), or otherwise, relating to the use of these
materials and the information contained herein.






Learn more @ www.zpryme.com | www.smartgridresearch.org

CCS Coal Projects

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à CCS Coal Projects

Similaire à CCS Coal Projects (20)

Plus de Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC

Plus de Zpryme Research & Consulting, LLC (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

CCS Coal Projects