CCS Projects Integration Workshop - London 3Nov11 - Schlumberger - The Timing of Storage Site Characterization

www.slb.com/carbonservices

The Timing of Storage Site Characterisation

AK (Tony) Booer

Nov 3, 2011 Global CCS Institute / CSLF Meeting on Project Integration

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licThe Global Status of CCS: 2011From the Executive Summary...

“Information from project proponents indicates that storage assessment and characterisation requires considerable investment and can have long lead times of five to 10 years or more for a greenfield storage site, depending on

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

the existing available geologic information about the site.”

“Policymakers need to factor these lead times into their assessment of a project’s progress. Projects that have not yet commenced active storage assessment may have a challenge to achieve operation before 2020.”

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licThe Timing of Storage Site Characterisation

A Key Question:

● What is the storage for ?

― “Demo” project ?

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

― Large-scale storage site characterisation ??

― Enhanced Oil Recovery ???

Another one:

● Where is the CO2 coming from ?

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licTiming of Storage Site CharacterizationInternational / National / Regional / Project level

US DOE Carbon Sequestration Program Goals:

Deliver technologies & best practices [by 2020] that provide Carbon Capture and Safe Storage (CCSS)

European NER-300 funding:

[by 2015]

8 CCS projects, of which:

● Min 1, Max 3 in the following categories: pre-combustion, post-

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Capture and Safe Storage (CCSS) with:

● 90% CO2 capture at source

● 99% storage permanence

● < 10% (pre), < 35% (oxy, post) increase in COE

categories: pre-combustion, post-combustion, oxy-fuel and industrial applications

● Min 3 with saline aquifers & Min 3 with depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs

● Min size threshold: 250 MW. Min capture efficiency: 85%.

5

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licIllinois Basin – Decatur Project

A collaboration of

● the MGSC,

● the Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

― CO2 source + site location

● Schlumberger Carbon Services― Storage and monitoring

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

― Storage and monitoring

● Trimeric,― Compression & dehydration

● and other subcontractors

to inject 1 million metric tonsof anthropogenic CO2at a depth of ~7,000 ft (~2,000 m) to test geological carbon sequestration in a saline formation at a site in Decatur, Illinois

6

CO2 Storage in the North Sea – Industry Potential

7

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licIndustry Best Practices

“While the analysis in Site Screening and Site Selection relies primarily on existing data, Initial Characterization involves the acquisition of new, site-specific data by employing investigative tools and techniques. Initial Characterization tools include both data collection (e.g., seismic and well logging, core analysis, injectivity tests) and development of three-dimensional (3D) mathematical models of the selected injection and confining zone(s). The successful characterization of a site is the most important step in ensuring the safe and economic operation of a CO2 GS site. “

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Source: US DOE NETL – Best Practices for: Site Screening, Site Selection, and Initial Characterization for Storage of CO2 in Deep Geologic Formations

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licCarbonWorkFlowprocess for long-term CO2 storage

Appraisal / Appraisal /

DevelopmentDevelopment

CO2 InjectionCO2 Injection

ClosureClosure

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

9

Pre SelectionPre Selection

Appraisal / Characterization

Appraisal / Characterization

Post closurePost closure

Post liability transferPost liability transfer

Performance Management & Risk Control

Performance Management & Risk Control

Pre-injection Injection Post-injection

CarbonWorkFlow* mark

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licCarbonWorkFlow

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

*Mark of Schlumberger

CarbonWorkFlow* process for long-term CO2 storage enabling assessment and management of risk in every phase of a project.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licOil & Gas business approach to front-end risk...

Explore

Explore

Explore

Explore

Studies, models, risk assessment & campaign drilling

The exploration & Production Business Learned to Diversify Front End Risks- Find & Develop a combination

of specific sub-surface conditions

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licProduce

Explore

Explore

Explore

Appraise

Diversify Risks Across

• Plays & Prospects• Joint Ventures• Technology / Costs• Scale

DevelopExplore

Volume

• Seismic• Logs• PressuresRate

• Logs• Samples• Tests• Extended Well Tests

Thanks to A J Garnett

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic...but what’s happening in the CO2 world ?

Inject

Explore

Explore

Explore

Explore

Studies, models, site selection & one “best shot”

DevelopExplore & Appraise

- less drilling, - more & more complex modelling, - no Extended Well Testing equiv.- more reliance on lab-tests - no long term field calibration (yet)

(but natural analogues)

too early narrowing

down to single options

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Inject

Explore

Diversify

Risks ?

DevelopExplore & Appraise

Containment ?• “Sealing” Models• Lab studiesRate

• Logs• Models• Samples & labCapacity

• Seismic• Logs

Complexmodelling

Reactive flowCoupled processes• flow, • mechanical, • chemical

Extensivemodelling

Full-earthEmissions (source terms)

No. of “prospect tests” required for 90% confidence in at least one getting to FID ?

• E&P Prospects 6 – 8

• CO2 sites 2 – 4 ??

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Construction Injection Equalization ClosurePossible site Probable site Approved site

Commercialization timeline, costs and uncertainty

Cumulative Cost

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Risk Control & Performance Assessment

5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs

* Per ton estimates and total costs (in current day $USD) are based on 100Mton lifetime storage volume)

Uncertainty

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

(pen

nies

per

ton)

1-Study existing data and start risk methodology

Cumulative Cost


Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs

Des

ktop

Stu

dies

(p

enni

es p

er to

n)



Uncertainty

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

(pen

nies

per

ton)

models

2-Collect and analyze new data

Cumulative Cost


Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Collect DataBuild Models

( ~50 cents / ton )

5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs

Des

ktop

Stu

dies

(p

enni

es p

er to

n)

wells and seismic



Uncertainty

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

(pen

nies

per

ton)

models

3-Design, permit and build

Cumulative Cost


Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic


(~50 cents / ton)

5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs

Des

ktop

Stu

dies

(p

enni

es p

er to

n)

Design andPermit

(<10 cents / ton)

Build(~$1 / ton)

wells and seismic



Uncertainty

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

(pen

nies

per

ton)

monitor

models

4-Operations

Cumulative Cost

gatherupdate


Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic


(~50 cents / ton)

Design andPermit

(<10 cents / ton)

5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs

Des

ktop

Stu

dies

(p

enni

es p

er to

n)

Operate Site3 Mton/yr( dollars / ton )

wells and seismic


Build(~$1 / ton)


Uncertainty

gather

data

update

models

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

(pen

nies

per

ton)

monitor

wells and seismic

models

5-Closure and post closure

Cumulative Cost

gatherupdate


Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic



(~50 cents / ton)

Design andPermit

(<10 cents / ton)

5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs

Des

ktop

Stu

dies

(p

enni

es p

er to

n)

EnvironmentalMonitoring

( pennies / ton )

wells and seismic


Build(~$1 / ton)


Uncertainty

gather

data

update

models

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

gather

Scale? Learning Curve?

$500M – $1B

(~pe

nnie

s pe

r ton

)

Exp

lora

tion

Cos

t ? (

suc

cess

rate

?)

monitor

models

Regulatory Req’sQuality Std,Liability ?

Property Rights?

$150M

Variables – which control Timing

Market Forces?

�-Capex? / Opex? �

FID Confidence ?

Public Acceptance?Cumulative Cost

update


Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

gather

data


(~50 cents / ton)

Design andPermit

(<10 cents / ton)

5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs

Uncertainty

Des

ktop

Stu

dies

(~

penn

ies

per t

on)

Exp

lora

tion

Cos

t ?

EnvironmentalMonitoring

( ~pennies / ton )

wells and seismicLiability ?

$1M

$50M



Build(~$1 / ton)

Discount Rate? �


update

models

CO2 Storage in the North Sea – Industry Potential

20

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licIllinois Basin – Decatur Project Phase III Awarded December 2007

Major Project Elements:

● Underground Injection Control (UIC) permitting: January 2008-October 2011― application, hearing, minor modification, major modification, completion reports…

● Injection well drilled: February 14 - May 4, 2009

● Geophone well drilled: November 2009

● Baseline 3D seismic survey completed: January 2010

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

● Baseline 3D seismic survey completed: January 2010

● Compression / dehydration / pipeline facility ― design, procurement, construction, testing, February 2009-October 2011

● Monitoring well drilled, cased: Sept-Nov 2010

● Monitoring well completion: May-June 2011

● Completion Report to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): August 2011

● Permission to Inject: early November 2011

● Initiate injection: Next Week ?… (ramp quickly up to 1000 tonnes per day)

21

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

licTiming of Storage Site Characterization

● At a National, and individual project level, storage is generally on the critical path now.

● To move to the next level of certainty, special efforts to collect, evaluate, and integrate new data in order to qualifylarge-scale storage sites are needed.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

large-scale storage sites are needed.

● Each site is different (as usual!)

● What is the storage for ?

● Where is the CO2 coming from ?

CCS Projects Integration Workshop - London 3Nov11 - Schlumberger - The Timing of Storage Site Characterization

Business

storage of co2

agreenfield storage

site selection

co2 gs site

site screening

storage permanence

co2 capture

co2 world