24 PROSPECTS OF CCS PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION IN RUSSIA : ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

The urgency of environmental protection is determined by its intensive change because of human impact, which, among other things, accompanied by an increasing of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. One of the ways to reduce the emission is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies. To date, developed countries have successfully implemented a number of CCS demonstration projects. Their main purpose is to study the effectiveness of CO2 storage. Russia is one of the world’s largest producers of CO2 emissions. However, CO2 capture and storage issues are not studied by Russian enterprises due to the absence of environmental taxes. The experience of developed countries shows that CO2 storage projects, in addition to the reduction of anthropogenic impact, can be commercially effective not only by reducing the tax burden. This review presents the analysis of international experience in the field of CO2 capture and storage. Given the immaturity of technology and lack of the necessary volume of statistical data, it was an attempt to determine the minimum conditions, which permit the implementation of CCS projects in Russian oil fields. On the basis of the Russian development forecast and the fuel balance structure the volumes of CO2 emissions in the 2016–2030 years were calculated. According to significant difference in opinions about the feasibility of CCS implementation in Russia, this review presents the main arguments for and against such projects. Evaluation of the potential effectiveness of CCS projects to enhance oil recovery factor showed that in spite of the absence of CO2 emissions taxes, such projects could be commercially effective in Russia due to the increase in oil recovery.


INTRODUCTION
For the first time the issues related to global warming and the greenhouse effect became public in 1960 in connection with the data collected by Manua Loa Observatory, Hawaii [Keeling 1978].In 1988, under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to assess the risks of global climate change [Hulme and Mahony 2010], and in 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is aimed at global climate change controlling [Meakin 1992], was approved.In 2005 the Kyoto Protocol came into effect, which identified the need of greenhouse gas emissions reduction (from 2008 to 2012 by 5.2% compared to 1990 levels).In 2012 in Doha (Qatar), it was decided to extend the Kyoto Protocol up to 2020 [Doha Climate Change 2012].
Thus, the world community faced the problem of finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO 2 ), not compromising industry and the standard of living.The main ways of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are reducing energy consumption, improving the efficiency of traditional energy (Table 1), development of renewable and nuclear energy [Khlebnikov et al. 2009].These options assume profound reconstruction of energy, which is a very capital-intensive and knowledge-intensive process, and the period of its implementation, even in developed countries, takes decades.Furthermore, it cannot solve the problem of climate change completely despite the fact that such technologies as biomass pyrolysis allows to transfer up to 63% of the original carbon in the fixed form [Borodulya et al. 2004], which greatly facilitates the process of gas utilization [Burcu 2013] and opens alternative ways for its use [Tcvetkov and Strizhenok 2016].
One of the proposed solutions to solve this problem is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).The technology involves capturing carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds, and their long-term storage in special reservoirs [Leung et al. 2014].CCS is possible to apply to the exist-ing energy system based on fossil fuel, which makes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions cheaper in the short term compared to other technologies (reduction of the fossil fuels share, developing nuclear and renewable energy, etc.) [L'Orange Seigo 2014].Despite the relative novelty of this solution, some of its units have already been used in the industry of various countries, as pilot or even commercial projects (Figure 1).Not all sources of carbon dioxide emissions are possible to adopt with CCS technology.About half of all CO 2 emissions, mostly originating from the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil, etc.), the production of cement, oil and gas processing, as well as in the smelting of iron and steel [CCES 2014] are potentially suitable to capture.
Top countries in terms of CO 2 emissions volume are China, US, EU, India and Russia (Figure 2), where the major part of emissions occur due to the processing of coal and petroleum products [IEA 2015].
However, if the developed countries such as the United States (the emission was reduced by 10% in 2012 compared to 2000) and the EU (by 5%) conduct research activity in the field of CCS technologies, China, India and Russia, yet do not pay enough attention to this problem and do not reduce their emissions (emission in these countries doubled).

PERSPECTIVES OF CCS PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE WORLD
CCS is a combination of separate technologies (Figure 3), which can be combined with each other to create a more flexible and efficient system in  2).
The most significant price reduction is expected in the CO Another important issue in the field of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, consequently, increasing the commercial effectiveness of CSS project is the modernization of state tax policy.Morris and Mathur [2014] examine existing research focused on increasing tax rates on CO2 emissions in the United States.The author highlights the approach [Morris 2013a], which allows to satisfy a number of sides interested in reducing the CO 2 emissions.The tax rate is proposed to be set at $ 16 per ton of CO 2 emissions and increase it by 4% per year due to inflation.Thus, there is a growing interest in CCS issues in the world scientific literature.One of the exceptions is Russia, where the issues of such projects implementation are not considered yet, despite the fact that Russia is one of the top CO 2 emission producers in the world (Figure 2).

PAYBACK OF THE CCS PROJECTS
The feasibility of CCS projects is determined by the growth of industrial production [Keller et al. 2003], which can be expressed in terms of GDP (Figure 4).
As the base for Russian industry growth forecast, the data of the Ministry of the Russian Federation Economic Development was used [2013].Based on the fact that the volume of emissions increases according to the mathematical relation indicated in Figure 4, the minimum presumptive CO2 emissions in the range of 2016-2030 years was calculated.
Given the lack of factual data of the CCS projects functioning, the question of the effectiveness of their implementation is debatable.In this regard, a number of scientific periodicals The main driver for the development of CCS projects today is the tightening of the tax rates on CCS emissions.In addition, it is possible to store CO 2 into oil fields (the most effective direction for CO 2 use assessment according to McKinsey) that allows to increase the oil recovery factor, which can be an additional source of income  from the implementation of such projects.There are no taxes on CO 2 emissions in Russia, unlike in Europe and the US, moreover the structure of energy consumption to 2030 will be unchanged (Table 3).Given these facts, it was attempted to determine the required growth of oil extraction per 1 ton of injected CO 2 into the field to provide at least a break-even of the project.
The evaluation was based on information about JSC "Rosneft Oil Company" and JSC "Gazpromneft oil Company" best practice.The conversion of the ruble to the dollar was carried out at the rate of Central Bank of Russian Federation 02.06.2016 (

ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS
The potential of CCS projects implementation is widely discussed on the world stage (Table 4).Despite the differences in opinions, there is no denying the fact that the preservation of ecology is one of basic principles of regions' sustainable development, including the issue of CO 2 emissions raise.The relevance of this problem in Russia determines by the forecast of CO 2 emission volume (Figure 5) and by the absence of preconditions to changing of the country's energy sources balance structure.
By 2030, CO 2 emissions in Russia will increase by 6.9-11.84%,whereas, for example, in Europe it is going to be reduced to 40% of emissions in relation to 1990 [European Commission 2014].

ECONOMICAL ASPECTS
CCS projects are capital-intensive and should not be implemented with the obligatory participa-

Economy
The cost of electricity will increase dramatically in the case of CCS implementation Russian oil and gas infrastructure is well developed that will reduce the value of CCS projects There is no guarantee that an additional effect (for example, enhanced oil recovery) will exceed the value of CCS projects tion of the state.This is possible only at the demonstration stage, in the future, such projects must have an economic effect.Due to this, the evaluation of such projects commercial effectiveness becomes relevant.
On the base of CCS value forecast [McKinsey 2008] and the analysis of the current situation in the oil markets an approximate estimate of the required oil production growth per 1 ton of stored into the field CO 2 was drawn (Figure 6).
The evaluation shows that the level of oil extraction required for the implementation of such projects is relatively high, but attainable.According to Shell [2016], the average amount of additional oil extraction in such projects is 1.8 barrels / 1 tonn of CO 2 .For comparison, one of the most successful CCS projects to date -The Great Plains Synfuels Plant, where 1 t.CO 2 pumped into the field makes possible to extract 6.

CONCLUSIONS
There are many discussions around the development and implementation of CCS technologies.The main arguments against CCS is inability to reduce CO 2 emissions to the required level in time and unavailability of a large-scale industrial implementation.Moreover, it is difficult to predict how large volumes of stored CO 2 will migrate in the underground space and how it will affect the global ecosystem after dozens and hundreds of years.
On the other hand, CCS technology will stimulate the growth of industrial energy efficiency and increase the oil and gas recovery factor.Thus, it is possible to agree that CCS technology is the way to effective resource-saving.CCS is a kind of nature-like technology, which allows to reduce human pressure on the environment.The existence of successful demonstration projects in the world should also be noted.
Russia is one of the largest CO 2 emissions producers in the world.However, there are no CCS demonstration projects, no effective system of state support, no research supported by the real sector of economy, no adequate system of CO 2 emissions taxes.Current and forecasted CCS value makes it potentially effective when used for enhance Russian oil fields.In addition, studies in the field of biomass and coal gasification show the possibility of a significant increase in the efficiency of CO 2 capture process -the most expensive stage of the CCS projects.However, a need to take into account the fact that the implementation of CCS projects will lead to a substantial rise in the cost of electricity in Russia [Rubin 2005].
various industries [McFarland et al. 2003, Cherepovitsyn et al. 2013].In connection with the novelty of CSS, there are various approaches to determining its value [IEA 2004, McKinsey 2008].For example, according to the forecast of McKinsey [2008] experts, there are early stage demonstration projects (~ 2015), an early commercial stage (2020) and mature commercial stage (2030).The key differences between these phases, expressed in terms CCS unit cost per 1 tonne CO 2 (Table 2 capture process due to imperfect modern technologies of traditional fuel and raw materials.However, research in the field of alternative use of raw fuel materials (for exam-ple, coal [Maurstad et al. 2006, Holt 2003] and biomass [Rhodes and Keith 2003, Rhodes and Keith 2005, Gu and Bergman 2015] gasification), shows a high efficiency of the capture process and, therefore, lower cost technology.Thereby, today marks the launch of a number of CCS projects, which are described by Folger [2014].However, there are no pilot projects or similar fullcycle CCS technologies in Russia.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4.The relation between CO 2 emissions volume and GDP of Russia (2000-2012)

Table 2 .
The forecast of CSS value at different stages, USD/t 1 USD = 77.34RUR).The cost of oil transportation is taken equal to 5.7 USD/ barrel [Gazprom oil Company 2015].Price per 1 barrel -34.13 USD (06/02/2016).Cost of oil production -3 USD/barrel.[RBC 2016].Thus, the maximum profit is 25.43 USD/barrel.The cost of 1 t. of CO 2 storage adopted on the basis of the minimum limits specified in Table 2.

Table 3 .
Forecast of energy resources consumption in Russian Federation [Ministry of the Russian Federation Economic Development 2013]