Peterhead Carbon Capture and Storage

Peterhead Carbon Capture and Storage
Name	Peterhead Carbon Capture and Storage
Location	Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, Scotland
Status	Proposed / Cancelled (various phases)
Owner	Shell UK / SSE / other partners (project phases)
Type	Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
Start	2010s
Capacity	proposed ~1 million tonnes CO2/yr (pilot scale)

Peterhead Carbon Capture and Storage Peterhead Carbon Capture and Storage was a proposed industrial-scale carbon capture and storage project centered on the Peterhead Power Station site near Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, Scotland. The project sought to capture emissions from a natural gas-fired power plant and to inject compressed carbon dioxide into offshore geological storage beneath the North Sea continental shelf. It involved a consortium of energy companies, engineering firms, and public agencies with links to Shell plc, SSE plc, and UK and Scottish public bodies.

Overview

The project aimed to pilot post-combustion CO2 capture at a large combined-cycle gas turbine at Peterhead Power Station and to demonstrate subsea carbon dioxide storage in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and saline aquifers beneath the Central North Sea. Partners explored capture technology supplied by Hitachi, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and Aker Solutions, with transport and injection modalities informed by experience from Sleipner and Snøhvit operations. Funding discussions included the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Scottish Government alongside private investment from Shell UK and consortium members.

History and Development

Initial concept work began in the early 2010s alongside national CCS ambitions promoted by the UK Government and Scottish energy policy under the Scottish National Party. Feasibility studies referenced storage analogues such as the Sleipner gas field project operated by Equinor and learnings from the Gorgon project in Australia run by a consortium including Chevron. The Peterhead proposal evolved through multiple consortium arrangements involving Shell plc, SSE plc, Inchcape Shipping Services, and engineering contractors like Jacobs Engineering Group and TechnipFMC. Political milestones included interactions with the UK Treasury over capital support and negotiations with the Oil and Gas Authority concerning licensing for offshore injection. Public announcements and planning submissions occurred amid shifting UK energy policy, with project pauses and eventual cancellation signaling the difficulties faced by early CCS demonstrations in the UK.

Technical Design and Facilities

The technical design envisaged retrofitting a combined-cycle gas turbine at Peterhead Power Station with post-combustion capture using amine solvents or chilled ammonia processes developed by firms such as Johnson Matthey and MHI. Capture trains, solvent regeneration units, and CO2 compression skids would be sited adjacent to existing turbine halls and linked to gas turbine control systems by Siemens-supplied instrumentation. CO2 would be compressed to supercritical pressures and transferred via high-pressure pipelines to an onshore export terminal and then to an offshore injection platform designed with subsea trees and wells akin to designs by Subsea 7 and Saipem. Offshore storage assessments referenced reservoir modelling techniques used by Statoil/Equinor and well integrity standards derived from Oil and Gas Authority guidance and OGUK best practice.

Carbon Capture, Transport and Storage Process

Captured carbon dioxide would be separated from flue gases using chemical solvents, stripped in regenerator columns, and then dehydrated and compressed to around 100–150 bar for pipeline transport. Onshore export infrastructure would include boost compressors and metering consistent with standards from National Grid and Energy Networks Association. Offshore, CO2 would be injected into saline aquifers or depleted fields; wellbore designs would follow specifications similar to those used for enhanced oil recovery at Valhall and CO2 storage monitoring would deploy seismic surveys comparable to those at Sleipner and K12-B. Monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) plans referenced methodologies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the European Commission directives relevant at the time.

Environmental and Economic Impact

Proponents argued the project could materially reduce emissions from a major regional emitter and create jobs in Aberdeenshire and the United Kingdom supply chain spanning firms such as Babcock International and Wood Group. Economic analyses compared levelized costs with other low-carbon options and referenced carbon pricing under the EU Emissions Trading System and proposed UK mechanisms. Environmental assessments considered risks to marine habitats in the North Sea and potential leakage pathways, informed by studies from British Geological Survey and Marine Scotland Science. The project was presented as complementing renewables ambitions involving ScottishPower and SSE Renewables, while critics highlighted cost-effectiveness relative to alternatives like offshore wind and tidal energy projects.

Regulatory, Planning and Stakeholder Engagement

Regulatory steps included applications to the Aberdeenshire Council planning authority, licensing coordination with the Oil and Gas Authority and environmental permitting under frameworks used by Marine Scotland and the Environment Agency. Stakeholder engagement involved consultations with local communities in Peterhead, fisheries organisations such as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and environmental NGOs including Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Cross-government negotiations involved the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and interactions with European Commission policy instruments prior to UK withdrawal from the European Union.

Criticism and Controversies

Critics questioned the project’s reliance on fossil-fuel-fired generation alongside CCS, drawing parallels to debates around carbon capture and storage policy failures in the UK following the cancellation of the UK CCS Competition and projects like Kingsnorth. Cost overruns and subsidy requirements provoked scrutiny from bodies such as the National Audit Office and opposition in the Scottish Parliament by members from Scottish National Party and Scottish Labour. Environmental groups raised concerns about lock-in effects compared with investment in renewable companies like Orsted and Vattenfall. Industry commentators referenced lessons from international CCS experiences including Boundary Dam and Quest CCS regarding operational risks and long-term liability.

Category:Carbon capture and storage projects Category:Energy infrastructure in Scotland