Japan CCS Forum Technical Seminar ‐ Comparison of the three modes throughout the CCS value chain –

Japan CCS Forum Technical Seminar ‐ Comparison of the three modes throughout the CCS value chain –

Thank you very much for participating the “Japan CCS Forum Technical Seminar- Comparison of the three modes throughout the CCS value chain -“on March 4th.

We share the presentations and Q&A in this page and will upload the video recordings soon.


<Event Overview>
Event :


“Japan CCS Forum Technical Seminar‐Comparison of the three modes throughout the CCS value chain -“
Date/time: 4th Mar 2024(Mon)16:00-18:00 JST(Seminar), 18:00-19:00 JST(Networking)

Registration at the event venue opens from 15:30

Hosted by: Global CCS Institute (GCCSI)
Supported by:



Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security (JOGMEC)

Japan Coal Frontier Organization (JCOAL),
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE) and

Japan CCS Co., Ltd. (JCCS)

Venue: Meeting room B, 11F, AP Toranomon
11F, NS Toranomon Building, 1-6-15, Nishi Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Seminar Type:  Hybrid (ZOOM Webinar and the event venue)
Capacity: Online registration and up to 70 in-people attendance
Language: Japanese and English (Simultaneous interpretation service provided)
Entry Fee:   Free
Registration: Link


<Purpose of the event>
The Global CCS Institute has held the Japan CCS Forum in previous years to disseminate a range of information related to CCS worldwide, and has now decided to focus on the various technologies and specific issues at each stage of the CCS value chain to provide a forum for individual information sharing and discussion. The Institute has decided to provide a separate information sharing and discussion forum.
According to the Institute’s flagship report, Global Status of CCS 2023, as of July 2023, approximately 115 networked CCS projects have been identified globally, with a further expansion trend. In Japan, four of the seven advanced CCS projects selected by JOGMEC in June 2023 involved ship transport, and CCS networks offer economies of scale by sharing common infrastructure, shortening licensing timelines and increasing efficiency at both the development and operational stages. As the CO2 network gains momentum, the CO2 transport value chain, including liquefied CO2 (LCO2) ship transport technology, is developing and maturing.
Three modes with different temperatures and pressures ( (a)low pressure-LP /  (b) medium pressure -MP / (c)elevated pressure -EP) are currently being considered for CCS projects that require marine transportation of liquefied CO2. The requirements for projects in Europe, where relatively small amounts of CO2 are often transported over short distances, and those in Asia, where there is a strong tendency to transport large volumes of CO2 over long distances, are different, so the optimal solution will be different for each individual project. All three modes have its pros and cons and there is a scenario that all three modes coexist in the CCS market. In the upcoming detailed studies of each CCS projects, it is essential to deepen the examination with a holistic view throughout the value chain, rather than examining each process of liquefaction, temporary storage, transportation, and injection individually. We invite Chiyoda Corporation, Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha(NYK-Line), Knutsen NYK Carbon Carriers AS, which conducted a qualitative and quantitative comparative study of the three mode, and Pace CCS, which provides consulting services for CCS projects around the world to present and share their views.


<Main Theme>
1. Introduction of three modes (LP: Low Pressure, MP: Middle Pressure, EP: Elevated Pressure)to transport liquified CO2
2. Comparison of the three modes throughout the CCS value chain


Program Distribution
<Video recording>


16:00 Opening Remarks
Yasuo Murakami
Senior Business Development and Engagement Lead
Global CCS Institute


16:05 Opening Speeches
Kimiho Sakurai
Vice President, Division Director,
Business Developmet Division
Chiyoda Corporation


Tsutomu Yokoyama
Executive Officer, General Manager of Green Business Group
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK Line)


16:10 Presentation 1
”Introduction of Three Modes of handling LCO2
– A third option contributing to the realization of a CCS Value Chain –”
Anders Lepsøe CV Presentation
Knutsen NYK Carbon Carriers AS


16:40 Presentation 2
”Comparison of LP, MP, and  EP across the CCS value chain” CV Presentation
Atsushi Tamagawa
General Manager of Gas&LNG Process Engineering Department
Chiyoda Corporation


Takahiro Rokuroda CV
Deputy General Manager, Green Business Group & Fuel Solution Group
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK Line)


17:20 Presentation 3
“Design and Operation of CCS Networks with Shipping: A Full-Chain View” CV Presentation
Matthew Healey
Managing Director
Pace CCS


17:40 Q&A
17:55 Closing
18:00 Networking
19:00 Closing







Question Answer
Is a re-liquefaction equipment necessary even though the operating conditions of Elevated Pressure are lower than the ambient temperature?
We perceive it as technically unnecessary. The BOR (Boil-Off Rate) of LNG are significantly larger compared to that of Elevated Pressure.
Elevated Pressure adopts CTC for onshore temporary storage tanks, and the current assumption states that CTC is installed inside the building, with temperature control being achieved through air conditioning. Therefore, a re-liquefaction equipment is deemed unnecessary. This approach is based on the smaller temperature difference between the operating temperature inside the tank and the external air temperature, resulting in a lower generation of BOG.
Doesn’t EP have a disadvantage in fuel efficiency, having the weight of cargo tanks larger than other methods? 








The operating condition of the ship can be divided into two main states: layden and ballast.Layden condition:
Since the cargo density is low, the water displacement in the layden condition is almost the same with the other modes. Therefore, the volume-based fuel efficiency is almost the same for both EP and other modes in the layden condition. However, in terms of fuel efficiency per t-CO2 of cargo, LP is advantageous. This is because EP requires either increasing the number of voyages or enlarging the ship size to transport the same amount of cargo with LP mode, resulting in increased overall fuel consumption in EP compared to LP.Ballast condition:
In the ballast condition, where the vessel is submerged in seawater until the propeller is immersed, there is no significant difference. In terms of power generation, EP has an advantage as it does not require a re-liquefaction equipment.When evaluating the total performance of the project, the impact may vary depending on the operational profile of each case. However, when evaluating the entire value chain, the difference in fuel efficiency for maritime transportation is not considered to be a significant factor.
Considering the density difference of liquefied CO2, the EP mode is set a larger capacity for the transport vessel. Does this result in any depth restrictions compared to other modes?
It is true that the weight of the tank itself is heavier in the EP mode compared to LP when comparing vessels of the same cargo volume. However, in the EP conditions where the liquid density is smaller, the cargo weight is lighter, and the weight of the tank and cargo becomes equivalent. Therefore, the water displacement in loaded conditions will be almost the same, and there should be no impact on the draft.The key specifications of the vessel can be flexibly designed according to the project requirements, and we recognize that the ability to propose flexible designs in the early stages is one of the strengths of EP vessels.
Understood that the construction period on-site is a concern for spherical onshore tanks. On the other hand, doesn’t the fabrication period of CTC have no impact on the overall process? 


CTC is transported to the site according to the on-site construction process. In cases where the delivery schedule is tight, it is possible to have multiple fabrication companies involved to avoid bottlenecks in the overall process. However, in the case of imports, inspections by designated foreign inspection agencies are required for pressure vessels, and careful selection of the manufacturing plant is necessary.
CTCs used in Elevated Pressure are manufactured in a factory and transported to the site for installation. This allows for concurrent implementation with on-site civil engineering works, reducing the risk of project delays. Furthermore, it is believed that the availability of multiple production bases, such as mill manufacturers, ensures the capability to produce a large quantity of CTC tanks, mitigating any potential impact.
Understood that CTC onshore tanks are designed with cassette installation. How do you approach the maintenance of the cylinders?
Since it is a pressured tank, regular periodic inspections are necessary. There is no insulation material on the exterior of the CTC, allowing for visual inspections during operation.  We are also considering the application of new technologies such as robots as part of the numerous CTC examination.
Are there any technical challenges regarding the loading arm in the EP mode?
We do not see any issue at this point of time.
If you state as “no track record” for EP, doesn’t that lead EP not to be considered as an option? 
When considering CCS from an decarbonization perspective, the amount of CO2 handling required is significantly larger compared to traditional industrial applications. In this context, there is a need for large-scale transportation and economic viability. Discussions are ongoing in parallel with regulatory aspects and technological development. It is challenging to determine what constitutes reliable track record precisely.
The current IGC Code is based on the assumption of cargo properties for flammable substances, and there are debates about the need for modifications when handling CO2 and pursuing economic viability.
Is there a building code for CTC tank structures? Is CO2 classified as a hazardous material, and are there any precautions or considerations that need to be taken into account? 




For storage of hazardous materials, there are requirements for explosion-proof structures in buildings. However, CO2 is not classified as a hazardous material, and therefore, such requirements are not specified. Nevertheless, it is generally considered prudent to follow explosion-proof structures similar to those used for hazardous material warehouses, ensuring the release of pressure in the event of an increase in internal pressure.Additionally, construction outside industrial areas or dedicated industrial zones may not be practical due to quantity regulations specified in the building codes (even semi-industrial areas have a limit of 35 tons).Regarding neighboring facilities such as hazardous material manufacturing plants, indoor or outdoor storage facilities, and outdoor tank storage facilities, there are regulations on the required safety distances between liquefied gas tank facilities and these facilities. However, these regulations apply to all storage methods and are not specific to CTC.
Where will CTC be manufactured?
To establish the CCS value chain, further cost reduction in CTC manufacturing is essential. The optimal manufacturing location, including transportation costs and logistics, is being considered. Locations in the Far East, including domestic options as well as South Korea and China, are under consideration.
Why does the quantitative comparsion assume spherical tanks for LP/MP modes instead of cylindrical type C?
We guess the question for temporary storage type. As we summarised, vessel type (TypeC) storage can be considered similar to Northen Lights, however max. capacity of the vessel type will be small compared with spherical type.
Does the purity problem also apply to pipeline transportation?
Yes, but need to consider further, depends on pipeline design.
What is the CTC track record in CO2 volume?
In terms of development achievements, the conceptual design of a transportation vessel in the maximum class of 80,000m3 has been completed. In terms of operational achievements, a CTC demonstration facility is currently operating in Haugesund, Norway, handling liquid CO2 of 12 m3 at a time.
According to the presentation by Pace CCS, it was mentioned that EP has a CO2 purity of 95%, which is considered acceptable. I have heard that for CCS purposes, the CO2 purity needs to be significantly higher. Could you please explain again about the CO2 purity?
Due to the physical properties of CO2, the solubility of impurities in CO2 at EP temperature and pressure conditions is generally higher compared to LP or MP conditions. The actual specifications for EP may vary for each CCS Value chain project, so it cannot be assumed that 95% is universally applicable. However, it is a qualitative fact that EP has a higher tolerance for impurities compared to LP or MP.
Having said it is waste product and referencing shipping project expensive, can you please comment on what basis is this expensive and where is the comparison if there is only shipping CO2 project in development.
The majority of operational CCS projects currently involve Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), and CCS projects involving ships are still in the exploration phase. As CO2 itself does not have value as a cargo, transporting it entails costs without generating inherent value for the operators. Therefore, it is crucial for the social implementation of CCS to prioritize economic viability and avoid “expensive” projects that do not provide sufficient value.
Could you provide a comparison between CO2 transport by vessels and piping in 3 modes (EP, MP and LP)?
We do not have three mode comparision vesels and piplines. However, according to IPCC report, break-even point for mass CO2 transport is 1000km. In Japan, it is reported that the break-even point is about 200-300km. In our study basis, over 1500km transport is assumed, the vessel transportation should be reasonable transport method as per these information.
Since the CO2 is transported in liquid phse under any of the conditions, I thought it would be natural to inject liquid phase CO2, but it seems it is pumped and heated to gaseous phase. What dictates the injection phase in the case study?
Injection pressure is depending on reservoir condition and temperature shall be higher than 0degC to avoid any of freezing, hydrate formation issue. Therefore, CO2 is usually injected by dense phase conditions with above 0 degC temperature.
In the cost estimation presented, is the assumption for the recovered CO2 to be uncompressed? Could you please show the power and cost implications of compressing the recovered CO2 and converting it to a liquid state?
The CO2 from CO2 recovery facility is close to atmospheric pressure. Compression of CO2 at a constant pressure can help reduce liquefied OPEX. However, if the CO2 capture facility is a chemical solvent, the overall required duty between CO2 capture and liquefaction remains the same.
In most of the existing cases, compressors are used for transportation and injection. In ship transportation, are there pros to inject using the compressors? (given that CO2 is transformed to supercritical condition)
In our study, we assumed dense phase injection into reservior. In order to reduce the required power for injection, pump injection is better than the compressor. Therefore if mass CO2 transport by liquefied CO2 is considered, the injection shall be carried out by pumps.
Please provide some guidance on the legal challenges concerning the introduction of EP in Japan.
There are no particular problems.
Please explain your thoughts on the corrosiveness of EP.
Typically, impurities that may form acid dropouts are treated upstream of the liquefied CO2 storage tank. Compared to LP and MP conditions, EP has a higher solubility of acid components and a relatively lower corrosion risk. In all conditions, corrosion risk can be reduced by appropriate impurity treatment.
Please explain the reason why seawater cannot be used for preheating before injection.
If seawater is available and the marine environment is unconstrained, seawater can be used as a heat medium for CO2.


If you have any further inquiry on this topic, here is the contact information.

Chiyoda Corporation


Green Transformation – Business Development
Knutsen NYK Carbon Carriers AS (KNCC)


Commercial Project Manager
Tomoki Matsuo
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK)


No3. Green Business Team, Green Business Group




Related Information

Chiyoda Corporation

Press release on January 31, 2024: “NYK, and KNCC Conduct Quantitative Comparison of CO2 Liquefaction, Temporary Storage, and Transportation – Combining Engineering and Shipping Expertise – “:Link

Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK)

Press release on January 31, 2024: “Chiyoda, NYK, and KNCC Conduct Quantitative Comparison of CO2 Liquefaction, Temporary Storage, and Transportation”:   Link

Knutsen NYK Carbon Carriers AS

2Press release on January 31, 2024: ”Chiyoda, NYK, and KNCC Conduct Quantitative Comparison of CO2 Liquefaction, Temporary Storage, and Transportation — Combining Engineering and Shipping Expertise — ”:Link



Global CCS Institute Japan OfficeEmail:Japan.Events@globalccsinstitute.com