So more than doubles. The International Panel on Climate Change has actually put more emphasis in this. If youre trying to hit a 550 target and you take ccs off the table, the cost goes up about 50 or really goes up between sort of 30 and 80 for 550. If you want to hit a 450 target the cost triples. Goes up between 200 and 400 . Thats a lot of money, and its just because in some markets coal with ccs is the cheap option. Not everywhere, maybe not in california, maybe not in arizona, but in a whole bunch of markets, in a whole bunch of places in the country and around the world, ccs with coal is the cheapest option for deep abatement, and if you get rid of that cheapest option, you have to replace it with something more costly or less efficient. The good news is weve made a lot of progress on this. This slide is actually a little old, but basically the lower two bars are stuff thats built and operating or will be operating soon because its being built. So right now were here at 2015, were putting about 50 million tons of Carbon Dioxide a year underground. That has a decent volume. Thats real abatement. That was co2 going into the atmosphere and is not anymore. By the end of the decade we should be roughly twice that. Right now we have 20 large projects worldwide. Were on track to have another 20 or so by the end of this decade. Thats awesome. We want that knowledge, we want that demonstration, we want the technical findings that come from that kind of an undertaking. It advises Decision Makers very, very well. This is an important one. This was the birth of a new species and i was happy enough to witness this october 1st a boundary dam in canada became the first place where someones retrofit a coal plant to capture the emissions using basically off the shelf technology. This is canadian technology, but its very similar to mitsubishis technology, similar to the norwegian technologies. Basically the steam coming out the top means its operating. That was venting 1. 1 million tons a year. Its not anymore. Thats all going underground now and they really like the idea of doing another one of these or another two of these. Theyve already learned enough from the first project to cut the cost by 30 on the second. That is a very important finding and its something we find is robust across the portfolio. As people deploy these things they say we know how to cut the cost on the first project a lot. Well just do the second project instead because the second project is always cheaper than the first by a lot. 20 to 30 is a very typical kind of number. I want to dwell on this for a moment because it helps make the point that i made earlier. An Environmental Group approached sas power and said youre going to spend 1. 4 billion on this project, thats a lot of money. How about you put a bunch of solar panels, put in a bunch of wind farms, you do a bunch of efficiency model and it will be better for your customers. Reasoned, impassioned pitch. The president said you know were in canada, right . Its dark here half the year, and when its dark is when we need the energy. So solar isnt a really great solution for us. Also we cant put up wind farms because we have chinooks that run 90, 100 miles an hour and they rip apart wind farms so wed lose our capital and canada has already put through a lot of efficiency measures. For our customers this is the right solution. And i want to underscore that line. For our customers, this is the right solution. Not for everybody, not everywhere, but for some part of the world this is what clean coal looks like. Virtually no sox, virtually no nox, no particulates, no mercury arsenic, and a 90 reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions. We have not been idle about this in the United States. Canada got there first, but its been a good run and weve got a number of projects coming online which weve put a lot of money into. The total investment from the u. S. Side on this so far is a commitment of about 4. 5 billion. A substantial commitment to see these things up and running and the reason why is because it all comes down to projects. Projects are the source of innovation, not just in technology, not just in engineering design, but in business, in policy, financial models, financing, all these things, it all comes into projects because when you put that kind of money on the table it focuses the mind and people get serious about trying to figure out how to make the thing work. Let me give you a couple examples. This is one of our favorite projects, the kemper project. This is a success in many ways. Part of that is were scaling up a useful technology. It took us 25 years to develop triggered gasifier. Were testing it now at scale. This is a 582 megawatt power plant, a big plant, and the thing i want to draw your attention to is really two things. One is that little black pile in the corner. Theyre mining local lignite and coal. Theyre mining that at 10 a ton. Theyve got an 80year supply. It is an incredibly cheap source of fuel for this plant. And in this part of the country where they need to maintain resilience due to weather disruptions and all these other sorts of things, a Southern Company thought this was an important component of their portfolio. Another thing that is not obvious from looking at this but it is a fact this is a net water positive power plant. This power plant produces water. It is a consequence of its function. Part of the reason is they have to dry the coal to make it work. When they do they recover the water and return it to the environment. We dont often think of fossil energy plant as sources of water but, in fact, they put water into the environment. Thats one of those things we could consider and the d. O. E. Is thinking about it in terms of its r d portfolio. You may be familiar with the petronova project. Its a huge power plant. Its like 4,400 megawatts. Half gas and half coal. They went and we gave them some money to do a 60 megawatt retrofit and they crunched the numbers and said 60 megawatts isnt going to cut it. We have to go big. Lets make it four times as big. They did a 240 megawatt retrofit with no additional investment of government money but they innovated their Business Model. This is first vertically integrated power plant, merchant power plant. So these guys own the power plant. They also are owning the capture facility, thats all those blue things. Those are being built right now. We broke ground in september and were off to the races. They poured the concrete for the cooling tower but they also own the co2 pipeline and a quarter of the oil field its being injected into. So in fact they are able to make finances for this project work by trying a new Business Model. Its important to note that this is also a model of what the future looks like in terms of International Partnerships. This project is 50 financed by japanese banks and, in fact, has Japanese Technology at its core. This is mitsubishis technology for post combustion retro fits. We think there will be other projects like this with International Financing and other projects of ours in which other governments are looking to play a role as well. This is a utilization project. Its one im kind of fond of. Its small by our standards, 750,000 tons a year, but i love this project. They are making baking soda. Theres not a huge market for baking soda, but theyre capturing the co2. Their feed stock is salt which is very cheap and theyre selling the baking soda and hydrochloric acid. Theyre actua profit on this and theyre looking forward to their second and their third and fourth plant. Important to understand, once they saturate the baking soda market which they will basically do on their next plant, theyre going to sell road aggregate. Basically at 11 bucks a ton. Its a cheap product but its thermodynamically favored and theres a market for it. Theyre being very straightforward and cagey about what theyre going to do. Its another stimulus project. We were glad to see it built and operating. This is just outside of san antonio. I encourage all of you to check out the cement plant where they are capturing the co2 and putting it into the market. So when it comes to what the department of energy and particularly my program is doing, our top, top priority are projects like this. Its just getting these commercial demonstrations into operation. One of them is already working from an industrial source in texas, a refinery. Its the air products project. Weve put 1. 6 million tons of co2 underground on that project, operating very, very well. Part of what we have to do is deliver a deep rich set of public learnings from all these projects because this is what theyre for. Theyre actually to advise the public. Among our projects we have precombustion, postcombustion. Were injecting into saline formations. Doing new builds and retrofits. Carbon gnats and plastics. Were trying to deliver the richest set of public learnings back to the nation. We take that mission very, very seriously. Second priority, we have to reimagine our r d portfolio. If you want the ninehour version of that talk, let me know. Im happy to give it. But really our program was conceived in 1997. The world has changed a bit since then so were busily going about trying to think what is actually important, how do we make the ccs and the clean coal r and d portfolio what it needs to be. Our Research Program was conceived in 1997 in which a unilateral United States seemed obvious to all. Not so obvious these days. There are Many International players in this space. There are many partners. The world has become more integrated, more complicated, more multinational in its actions, and we feel like thats an important part of making this situation work. I do want to take a moment and talk about the financing of these plants, and the primary reason why is because this is where if the focus is projects, then the issue with projects is financing. A lot of people come to me and say the issue with Carbon Capture and storage is about cost. My rejoinder is the issue with Carbon Capture and storage is about financing. I will unpack that in the next couple slides. Its i think fair to say that the cost of a plant with ccs is more expensive than a cost of a plant without it, but were not really talking about that. Were talking about something different. What Clean Energy Alternatives are out there, how do we bend that emissions curve in an important way. Its also not just about the technology. A lot of people say to me that this is an unproven or untested basket of technology. Its hogwash. We have been capturing Carbon Dioxide since 1938. We have been storing it underground since 1972. At these large commercial scales. Theres maybe a dozen vendors worldwide who will sell you a capture Technology Heavy equipment at a price with a performance guarantee. So the potential to improve is also very, very large. Ill just speak briefly to that. Well talk about it more. Right now we do these gas separations at about 15 over the thermodynamic efficiency. Theres a lot of room to improve from an engineering basis, from an integration basis, from a material science basis, from a thermodynamics basis. And it means theres a lot of room to ratchet down the cost. With respect to finance, thats really the issue. How do you finance these things . Many options which are open to other Clean Energy Technologies are not open to Carbon Capture and storage today. These include things like investment tax credits and production tax credits, renewable portfolio standards which allow you rate recovery, tax exempt debt financing, utilities that will provide that service, and i absolutely want to be clear on this, i do not have a dog in that hunt. I do not make or recommend policy, period. Not what i do. But if you want to get the financing done, its worth asking what kind of policy choices are available to us, and thats a conversation which we are very happy to have and eager to discuss. The punch and other countries, theyre actually pursuing that as well. In the United Kingdom they have a different of contracts which theyre exploring. White rose is the first off the block. And the European Union, they have feed in tariffs. Feed in tariffs have not been applied to Carbon Capture and storage yet. Just the question is how do you get these things built . One of the ways were trying to do it is through the Loan Program Office. In addition to the 6 billion we spent on my program, we have approved 8 billion of loan authorities strictly for fossil energy projects. Clean coal is very much at the top of those lists. And peter davidson, who is the new executive director of the Loan Program Office is keen to get these proposals and is starting to get them now. Now that that program is proving profitable, we are keen to see how it can be how the success of this program can be leveraged into Clean Fossil Energy projects. I think the majority of which will ultimately have ccs. To talk specifically about the cost issue, i wanted to show you this analysis. This is a levelized cost of electricity analysis. Let me start by saying the obvious. These are thorny, divisive estimates. I dont want you to draw too much from the specific numbers here, but this is an analysis done by World Resource Institute and published in their seeing is believing document, back in october. This shows very nicely what all of the above actually looks like. If you look at the cost of this, theres coal without ccs and coal with ccs. Natural gas without ccs and with ccs and a change of cost estimates for nuclear, geothermal, solar, photovoltaic, solar, thermal, all of these technologies. To a first cut in some markets, some of these are the cheapest. In other markets theyre not. You can see that here. One of the other things i want to draw your attention to is we dont have a lot of data points yet for ccs. One of the things we need to do is figure out the range around that, where will it be higher, where will it be lower as we start thinking about this going to different markets, what do the costs really look like . At this point basically youre talking about something thats a few cents per kilowatt additive maybe. Theres a lot of assumptions that go into that, how much capture are you going to do . Is it 50 , 90 . Theres a lot of questions in terms of what technology to use. But when you look at the range of these costs, one story emerges which is its all of the above. There isnt a Silver Bullet that you can point at and say this will always be that thing for the market. And youll do efficiency to some extent and then you do all these things. And one of the things that comes out of these kinds of analysis is the recognition that as a policy option, as an engineering option, as a deployment option, coal with Carbon Capture and storage is a very important one and a real one. One of the things that makes it work in the United States may be harder in other parts of the world is enhanced oil recovery. I cant overstate this enough. The low end estimates are many tens of billions of barrels of production that could come from co2 injection underground. That would provide tremendous revenues. If you look at the difference in cost associated with some of these projects, the tax revenues that come from eor basically are break even on the order of seven or eight years which means their net revenue positive to the government after that. You dont always think about it that way, but its an important finding done by northbridge engineering. In terms of storage potential, when you do enhanced oil recovery, you store Carbon Dioxide. Were looking at something on the order of more than 25 billion tons of storage in conventional eor. Thats a very large volume of Carbon Dioxide. That would be half the u. S. Coal fleet for 20 years. Its a lot of Carbon Dioxide, and, in fact, we are short about 100 million tons a year right now in terms of what the market would buy if you could supply it. So theres grounds to think that this would be helpful and it helps with the financing. Again, if the financing is the issue, getting some of the financing done through co2 eor is a good thing to do. In that context, this is something thats being considered in the context of the epas draft regulations. Whats interesting about this, and i dont want to dwell on this, is that ccs and ccus with eor is a compliance option. Especially under 111b, thats pretty straightforward and explicit, but also how this is treated is flexible. So the way that this is accounted for i think is something thats still being sorted. Were talking with the epa and trying to figure out how to make the best recommendations we can to what it is they do. Theyre a regulatory body, they take their jobs seriously, and we provide input to that. We hope its received, but we think having these successes with eor getting these projects built is important in thinking about opportunities in the power sector around compliance. Something usually not spoken about is residual oil zones. For those of you who are oil and gas economists, you probably dont think about these because theyre not resources and theyre not reserves. If you inject water into a residual oil zone to produce it, you get nothing. So it actually only works when you inject Carbon Dioxide. Something you might not know is people have been busily doing this around the country for about six years now. Theres eight fields in the United States that are producing from their residual oil zones. A recent study done by advanced Resources International looked at just four counties in texas. Thats the yellow box. The blownup box is one county in tex